Civil air defense project ownership dispute, the owner's claim was unsuccessful and lost.

Nine owners of a residential area took Haidian District Civil Defense Office to court to claim the ownership of civil air defense projects. Recently, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment on this case, and the claims of nine owners were rejected.

From June 5438, 2000 to February, 2000, these nine owners bought houses in a residential area 15 building in advance. In June 2002, the house was completed and put into use. In August, 2003, Haidian District Civil Air Defense Office of Beijing leased the civil air defense project on the second floor of the building to a property company with a lease term of 10 and an annual rent of 20,000 yuan. Later, the property management company subletted the civil air defense project of the building to a fitness center, which subletted the civil air defense project to more than 50 outdoor migrant workers.

Nine owners believe that these people have affected the living environment of community owners and posed a threat to their living safety and life health. Moreover, the price of buying a house includes the cost of civil air defense projects, which belongs to public service facilities and facilities. The owner should be the investor and owner of civil air defense projects, so he filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the ownership of civil air defense projects in the house where he lives be determined as the owner; Haidian district civil air defense office immediately retired idle personnel living in civil air defense projects; Return the rent of RMB20,000, etc.

It was found by the court that the public parts and construction area of public housing were stipulated in the annex to the Standard Commercial Housing Sales Contract signed by the owner and the developer; In the allocation principle of listed buildings, including building 15, the part that should be included in the allocation area is listed, excluding the underground second-floor air defense basement disputed in this case; In the terms of rights and obligations of both parties, the content of air defense basement is not involved. In August 2003, Haidian District Civil Air Defense Office signed a letter of responsibility for the use of civil air defense projects with the property management company, which authorized the use of civil air defense projects in the community, including the civil air defense projects in Building A 15, and charged the use fee.

Nine owners think that the owners are the real investors in the air defense basement. On June 9, 2004 165438+ 10/KLOC-0, the Beijing Municipal Civil Defense Office stated in the Reply of NPC Deputies on the Property Rights of Civil Air Defense Projects that the owners of residential areas are investors in civil air defense projects, because the investment in building basements has been spread into the house price.

At the same time, however, it is clearly pointed out in the reply that the civil air defense project is an important combat readiness facility of the country with special attributes, and its ownership needs to be determined by national legislation according to the national constitution and relevant laws. At present, there are no laws and regulations in China that clearly define the ownership of air defense basements in urban residential areas.

After hearing the case, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court held that the civil air defense office did not confirm the ownership of the air defense basement in its reply, and the reply did not have the evidential effect of confirming the owner's ownership of the air defense basement. When signing the contract, nine owners did not raise any objection to the clause that the area of the purchased commercial house does not include the air defense basement. This shows that when the commercial housing sales contract is established, the owner understands that the consideration of the purchase price paid by him does not include the air defense basement. Therefore, even if the cost of building an air defense basement is indeed shared by the owner, it lacks subjective initiative in capital contribution and does not belong to the "investment" behavior in the legal sense. Accordingly, the First Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment and rejected the claims of nine owners.