6 properties with a market value of 13.35 million yuan were sold for only 1.1 million yuan in the hands of the trustee.
Recently, the Guangzhou Liwan Court ruled a house purchase and sale contract dispute. Court believes that the trustee's behavior seriously violates the principle of honesty and trustworthiness, and the house purchase and sale is a malicious collusion to harm the interests of a third party, and confirmed that the contract is invalid.
Happy: Six houses are quickly found to buyers, selling for one million
Ms. Li is an overseas Chinese. Her father bought an old house in Xiguan, Guangzhou before his death, which was managed by the government. Since he was overseas, Ms. Li and other heirs jointly issued a "Power of Attorney" to Mr. Chen, and fully entrusted Mr. Chen to handle the return of overseas houses, house management, and sales of other matters.
In 2011, the housing department notified that the old house had been approved for withdrawal of management and confirmed that the old house had been demolished and compensated for a total of 6 houses on the original site, with a residential building area of about 720 square meters. With the assistance of Mr. Chen, the six houses were registered in the name of Ms. Li and other heirs in the same year. Due to inconvenience in managing and using the house, Ms. Li and other property owners instructed Mr. Chen to sell the house.
Soon after, Mr. Chen reported good news that the buyer of 6 houses had been found, with a price of 1.1 million yuan . Ms. Li, who was not familiar with the domestic real estate market, was very happy and soon issued a power of attorney to Mr. Chen, entrusting Mr. Chen to transfer the 1.1 million yuan receivable after tax on the real estate compensation transaction into her designated collection account.
Accident: The legal person of the house buyer company is the agent's son
Surprisingly, after signing the power of attorney, the process of Ms. Li collecting the house payment was not smooth. Mr. Chen only transferred a total of 260,000 yuan to Ms. Li in two batches in 2013, and the remaining amount was delayed until 2016. Ms. Li was uneasy about this. In 2016, Ms. Li found through the acquisition of real estate transaction files from the housing department that in February 2012, Mr. Chen signed 6 real estate sales contracts with the buyer Fu Company, and the total selling price of 6 houses was 4.8 million yuan. What is even more surprising is that Chen Mouning, the legal representative of Fu Mou Company, the buyer of house, turned out to be Mr. Chen's son !
With huge questions, Ms. Li continued to investigate and learned that Chen Mouning was originally a shareholder and director of Fu Mou Company. After the above-mentioned sales contract was signed in June 2012, Chen Mouning resigned from his position as director and transferred Mr. Chen as a director. All the shares of the company held by Chen Mouning were transferred to Mr. Chen. At this point, Mr. Chen became a director of Fu Mou Company and held 100% of the company's shares.
shocked: The total assessed value of 6 properties in 2012 exceeded 10 million
As the investigation deepened, Ms. Li gradually gained some understanding of the domestic real estate market situation in recent years. She believes that even if Mr. Chen and Fu's company signed a price of 4.8 million yuan, the price per square meter of the house is only more than 6,000 yuan, far lower than the market price. At this time, Ms. Li felt deeply deceived, so together with other property owners and heirs, filed a lawsuit with the Liwan District People's Court of Guangzhou City, demanding to confirm that the above-mentioned real estate sales contract signed by Mr. Chen and Fu's company were invalid, and Fu's company changed the property rights of the house back to the name of Ms. Li and other rights holders.
In court, Mr. Chen argued that he was just an agent, not a party to the sales contract. When he signed a sales contract with Fu Company, he had no legal relationship with Fu Company. The property for sale has been evaluated and registered by the housing management department, and there is no problem of low-priced transactions. Moreover, Ms. Li only appealed for return or change of transfer after many years, which did not comply with the legal provisions on the statute of limitations.
During the case trial, the court entrusted an appraisal agency to evaluate the market value of the six houses based on Ms. Li's application. According to the evaluation conclusions of the appraisal company, the total market value of the 6 houses in February 2012 was 13.35 million .
Judgment: The contract that colluded to sell at a low price to harm the interests of the principal was invalid
After trial, the People's Court of Liwan District, Guangzhou held that Mr. Chen signed 6 "Real Estate Sales Contracts" with Fu Mou Company in his own name, and agreed to sell 6 houses with a construction area of more than 720 square meters for a price of 4.8 million yuan. 's major decision to sell the house did not obtain the consent or instructions of Ms. Li and other house heirs in advance, and did not disclose the real information of the transaction and transfer the transaction benefits to the principal afterwards. He only paid the 1.1 million yuan house price to the principal, which seriously violated the trustee's honesty and trustworthiness . The transactions between Mr. Chen and Fu's company are obviously not in line with the rules of daily life. The total market value of the 6 houses was evaluated to be 13.35 million yuan when they were sold in 2012, which is far from the transaction price agreed by the buyer and seller. When buying and selling the house, Mr. Chen's son Chen Mouning was a director of Fu Mou Company, and then Mr. Chen became the actual controller of the company. From this series of actions, it is clearly seen that Fu's company has a close relationship with Mr. Chen and that the transaction of house purchases and sales is extremely abnormal. The two have subjective malice that they know that their actions will damage the heirs of the house, and collude with each other to implement the intention of buying and selling houses at a price far lower than the market, and actually fulfilled the objective behavior of transferring the house to the name of Fu Mou Company, achieving the purpose of Fu Mou Company encroaching on the house under Mr. Chen's actual control, resulting in the consequences of Ms. Li and other heirs of the house losing their rights and interests. The court then ruled that confirmed that the above six real estate sales contracts were invalid, and Fu Company assisted in registering the transfer of the property rights of the house to under the name of Ms. Li and other property owners.
Judge said: The trustee maliciously embezzled the client's house
Liwan District Court Court President Jiang Bin said that based on his understanding of Mr. Chen's ability and credibility, Ms. Li and other house heirs believed that they could handle the entrusted affairs well and established a contract relationship with Mr. Chen. Mr. Chen accepted the commission out of his willingness to serve the principal and his confidence in his ability to complete the commission. It is also based on a full understanding and trust in the principal. After establishing a contractual relationship with the entrusted party, the trustee shall handle the entrusted party affairs in accordance with the instructions of the principal and truthfully report the handling of the entrusted party affairs in order to safeguard the interests of the principal. The trustee's major decision to sell the house should obtain the consent or instructions of the principal in advance, and the true information of the transaction will be disclosed later and the transaction benefits will be transferred to the principal. In this case, Mr. Chen sold the house to a company he actually controlled. Such a house purchase and sale transaction was obviously not in line with the rules of daily life. The buyer and seller clearly colluded to damage the interests of the principal and contact them in subjective intention and intention, and actually registered the house under the so-called buyer's name, achieving the purpose of maliciously infringing on the principal's house, resulting in the loss of ownership of the principal's rights. Mr. Chen's behavior seriously violates the principle of honesty and trustworthiness. The house purchase and sale is a case of malicious collusion to harm the interests of a third party and should be invalid according to law.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-