Two people bought a house in partnership, and the third person "got a big bargain"?

The plaintiff, Mr. Zhou, sued his colleague, Ms. Wang, claiming that she privately sold the house funded by * * * at a low price;

The defendant, Ms. Wang, said that Mr. Zhou did not actually fulfill the agreement.

More than ten years ago, Mr. Zhou and his colleague Ms. Wang invested in buying a house in Guangzhou. Unexpectedly, Ms. Wang sold the house privately. He didn't know the news until the end of 20 17. To this end, Mr. Zhou sued the Haizhu District People's Court in Guangzhou, demanding that Ms. Wang's contract to sell the house be invalid, and this appeal was supported by the court. At the second trial, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that Mr. Zhou did not meet the conditions for prosecution, revoked the judgment of the first instance and dismissed Mr. Zhou's prosecution. The defendant, Ms. Wang, said that Mr. Zhou did not actually fulfill the agreement. Mr. Zhou told the reporter of New Express that he believed that the second-instance ruling found the facts and the applicable law were wrong, and he applied to the Guangdong Provincial High Court for retrial on 20 19 10.

■ New Express reporter He Shengting

plaintiff

1.5 million house sold for 600,000.

Mr Zhou and Ms Wang are colleagues. On June 2, 2005, the building A of Hongjing Garden,No. Chigang North Road 18, Haizhu District, Guangzhou104 (hereinafter referred to as 1 104), with a construction area of 75.32 square meters and a discounted price of 40 yuan. They agreed to lend the remaining 330,000 yuan to the bank for a period of 20 years, and each party will bear half of the loan repayment. Mr. Zhou told the reporter of New Express that the house was registered under the name of Ms. Wang at that time, and the two paid the corresponding proportion of the house payment according to the agreement.

On June 29th, 2005, 165438+ Mr. Zhou signed an agreement with Ms. Wang, stipulating that Mr. Zhou would pay part of the money to Ms. Wang, and Ms. Wang would withdraw from the investment in the property. Two years later, Ms. Wang assisted Mr. Zhou to handle the property transfer. After the agreement is signed, Mr. Zhou is responsible for paying bank loans and other payments.

Mr. Zhou said that after he paid Ms. Wang more than 70 thousand yuan, Ms. Wang never helped him with the property transfer. After consultation, he didn't know that this property was sold to Zhu Mouqiu by Ms. Wang at the price of 600,000 yuan as early as 20 1 1. "The market price at that time was about 1.5 million yuan."

Since Mr. Zhou and Ms. Wang purchased Room 1 104, the house has been managed and operated by Mr. Zhou. He believed that Ms. Wang colluded with Zhu Mouqiu, the buyer, without her knowledge, and harmed her legitimate interests, so she filed a lawsuit with the Haizhu District People's Court of Guangzhou on 201816, and brought Ms. Wang and Zhu Mouqiu to court.

buyer

The purchase transaction is legal and there is no malicious collusion.

At the first trial, Ms. Wang said that she and Mr. Zhou did jointly contribute to the purchase of Room 1 104 in June 2005, and signed an agreement to withdraw the contribution in June. However, Mr. Zhou did not pay her 77,620 yuan according to the agreed time. Later, due to rising house prices, she did not continue to insist on withdrawing from the investment.

Later, in the divorce property dispute case, she had to pay her ex-husband 300,000 yuan, and her attorney Liang lent her 200,000 yuan. As it is difficult to repay in one lump sum in a short period of time, Liang reminded Ms. Wang that her ex-husband would ask for the division of the 1 104 house she bought during her marriage at any time, and suggested that Ms. Wang sell the property to him.

At that time, Ms. Wang said that although the house was in her name, it was invested with others and signed a waiver agreement, but Liang said it could still be sold. When conducting a real estate transaction, she discovered that the house was transferred to the name of Zhu Mouqiu, Liang's mother.

During the trial, the defendant Zhu Mouqiu submitted a bank account to prove that the house transaction between her and Ms. Wang was legal and valid. She actually bought the property involved from Ms. Wang at a price of 800,000 yuan, and the purchase price was paid in full. Zhu Mouqiu thinks that he is a bona fide third party as a buyer, and there is no malicious collusion with the defendant Ms. Wang. The statement that the plaintiff traded at an unreasonably low price and harmed the plaintiff's interests could not be established.

Why is the housing transaction price agreed in the Guangzhou stock house sales contract only 600,000 yuan? In this regard, Zhu Mouqiu replied that this is because Ms. Wang's loan has not been repaid and the changes made in response to tax payment. The actual transaction price is 800,000 yuan.

The plaintiff, Mr. Zhou, said that the bank flow submitted by the defendant Zhu Mouqiu was not recognized, and the creditor-debtor relationship between Zhu Mouqiu and Ms. Wang had nothing to do with this case.

preliminary examination/check

If the sales price is obviously lower than the market price, the sales are invalid.

According to the agreement signed between Ms. Wang and Mr. Zhou, before June 29th, 2005, 165438+ Mr. Zhou paid Ms. Wang's investment of 77,620 yuan. After two years of negotiation, the two sides changed Ms. Wang's surname to Mr. Zhou.

201165438+1On October 20th, Ms. Wang and the buyer Zhu Mouqiu signed the Guangzhou Stock House Purchase and Sales Contract with a total amount of 600,000 yuan. According to the archives issued by the housing management department, the time for the house to be registered and transferred to Zhu Mouqiu's name is 20 1 1.

In addition, in the subscription book of Hongjing Garden Residence signed with the developer Guangzhou Tiandi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., the registered customer is Mr. Zhou, the plaintiff. In addition, the receipt issued by the property management company on July 3, 20 16 shows that the customers' names are Ms. Wang and Mr. Zhou.

The Haizhu District Court held through trial that the agreement and subscription letter of Hongjing Garden House submitted by the plaintiff can prove that the two people contributed to the purchase of the house involved. Ms. Wang confirmed this and the court confirmed it.

Regarding whether the two defendants' behavior of buying and selling the houses involved constitutes malicious collusion, the civil mediation submitted by Ms. proves that Liang, the son of the defendant Zhu Mouqiu, is the entrusted agent of Ms. Wang's previous divorce property dispute case, and Liang should know Ms. Wang's property status, including the houses involved. Ms. Wang also told Liang that the house was funded by others and signed a waiver agreement, so the defendant Zhu Mouqiu's statement that he was a bona fide third party was unfounded and was not adopted.

Of the running water in the bank, only 599,300 yuan was clearly marked as the purchase price, and the other 200,000 yuan was not the 800,000 yuan mentioned by the defendant. Even if the real transaction price is 800 thousand, it is obviously lower than the market price at that time.

The court held that the defendant Zhu Mouqiu did not actually inspect the house involved when purchasing the house involved, and did not hand over the house involved for many years after obtaining the property right, which did not conform to the normal housing transaction habits.

Therefore, the court held that both defendants' buying and selling behaviors were intentional, which damaged the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests in the house. On April 30th, 20 19, Haizhu District Court made a judgment, and the house sales contract of 1 104 signed by the two defendants was invalid, and the house of 1 104 was re-registered to Ms. Wang, the defendant.

second trial

If the plaintiff does not meet the conditions for prosecution, the judgment of first instance shall be revoked.

After the judgment of the first instance, Zhu Mouqiu refused to accept it and appealed to the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court. She believes that the house she bought involved is a legal and valid transaction, and the legal relationship between Mr. Zhou and Ms. Zhou can only be solved by themselves. Zhu Mouqiu has nothing to do with this, so it should not affect her legal property rights of the house involved.

Mr. Zhou told the reporter of the New Express that the market price of the property involved in the case was11more than 0.5 million yuan, and Ms. Wang sold it at an ultra-low price of 600,000 yuan, which was obviously unreasonable. After the house transaction involved, Zhu Mouqiu has not seen or closed the house for seven or eight years, which is contrary to common sense.

At the second trial, Ms. Wang said that the first-instance judgment found the facts clear and the applicable law was correct, and requested the court to dismiss the appeal.

After hearing the case, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the house involved was originally registered under the name of Ms. Wang. In this case, although Mr. Zhou claimed to have paid off the investment funds agreed in the agreement to Ms. Wang, there was no definite evidence to prove that Ms. Wang denied this claim; In addition, the fact that Mr. Zhou advocated payment was not confirmed by the effective judgment, so this case cannot confirm that Mr. Zhou enjoys the actual property rights of the house involved.

In this case, the lawsuit filed by Mr. Zhou on the grounds that his legitimate rights and interests have been damaged is not sufficient. Because it does not conform to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law that the plaintiff is a citizen, legal person and other organization that has a direct interest in this case, Mr. Zhou's claim is rejected.

On September 4th, 20 19, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court made a civil ruling, revoking the judgment of Haizhu District Court and dismissing Mr. Zhou's prosecution.

plaintiff

The chain of evidence is complete and has applied to Guangdong High Court for retrial.

Mr. Zhou refused to accept the civil ruling made by Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, and filed a retrial application with Guangdong Higher People's Court on June 10, requesting a retrial of this case.

Lawyer Zhou said that the evidence he provided to the court, such as the agreement, the subscription book of Hongjing Garden House, the pricing table of Hongjing Garden and the payment voucher to the developer, formed a complete chain of evidence, which clearly proved that the applicant was the actual right holder of the house involved.

He told the reporter of New Express that the bank statement he submitted showed that he had actually fulfilled the payment obligation to Ms. Wang (the designated payee). He believes that this case is a lawsuit to confirm the validity of the contract, not a lawsuit to infringe the real right of real estate. In the second instance, on the grounds that it was impossible to confirm that the applicant "enjoyed the actual property right of the house involved", it was considered that the applicant had no direct interest in the case, and then the applicant's lawsuit was rejected, which was an error of applicable law.

To this end, he applied to the Guangdong Higher People's Court for retrial, requesting that the ruling of the second instance be revoked according to law and the judgment of the first instance be upheld. For the progress of this case, the reporter of New Express will continue to pay attention.