SPC: When a contract is terminated and the breaching party sues the breaching party for damages and pays liquidated damages, does the court need to deal with the non-compliant party for the return of the property as a result? Mingcheng Investment Company applied for retrial

SPC: When a contract is terminated and the breaching party sues the breaching party for damages and pays liquidated damages, does the court need to deal with the non-compliant party for the return of the property as a result?

Mingcheng Investment Company applied for a retrial, saying:

According to the "R&D Cooperation Agreement" between it and Mingcheng Investment Company, Sinoma Xinjiang Corps obtained joint ownership of the land involved in the project, and after the contract was terminated, Sinoma Xinjiang Corps obtained a corresponding return according to the contract, and the land use right and the co-ownership right of ground attachments obtained by it as a result of the contract should be returned to Mingcheng Investment Company.

After the second-instance judgment of the contract was terminated, the return and attribution of the assets were not made explicit, resulting in the inability of the recipient of the return of the property to be confirmed, which caused new problems.

To this end, a retrial of the case was requested in accordance with the provisions of items 1, 2 and 6 of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

The Supreme Court's retrial held that:

Whether the court of first and second instance should hear the issue of the return of property after the termination of the contract?

Article 97 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "After the termination of the contract, if the performance has not been performed, the performance shall be terminated; if the performance has been performed, according to the performance and the nature of the contract, the parties may request restitution, take remedial measures, and have the right to claim compensation for losses." ”

In this case, the Sinoma Building project could not be completed as agreed, and due to other disputes involved, it had been sealed and evaluated and auctioned in another case, and the agreement stipulated that the houses and parking spaces obtained by Sinoma Xinjiang Corps had in fact been unable to be fulfilled, so sinoma Xinjiang Corps sued Mingcheng Investment Company and China Resources Guardian Company to compensate for losses and pay liquidated damages.

Mingcheng Investment Company applied for a retrial, saying that after the first and second instance judgments were terminated, the return and attribution of assets were not clearly stated, resulting in the recipient of the return of the property being unable to confirm, which was a violation of statutory procedures, and the reason could not be established.

(2021) SPC Minshen No. 4918 · 2021-12-14

#普法行动 #