Basic facts of the case
Mr. Zhang and Mr. Wan sued the court in 2015 due to a private lending dispute, and the two parties reached a repayment agreement through mediation, and the civil mediation letter of the court of first instance confirmed that Mr. Zhang and Mr. Liu (husband and wife) returned the principal of Mr. Wan's loan of 500,000 yuan and the corresponding interest before July 3, 2015.
Zhang xxx, Liu xxx did not perform the repayment obligation according to the effective documents, Wan xxx applied to the court for compulsory enforcement, in the process of enforcement, Zhang xxx, Liu xxx, still unable to pay cash, they requested that all of their real estate and courtyard (construction area of 1600 square meters) as a price of 2.135 million yuan to Wan xxx, and reached an "enforcement settlement agreement", on the day of delivery of the above real estate and courtyard, Wan xxx delivered the difference of 1.8 million yuan (2.315 million yuan - 515,000 yuan) to Zhang xx, Liu xx, also stated," Zhang xxx and Liu xxx guarantee that they have legal ownership and disposal rights to the real estate and courtyard, and guarantee that the rights of third parties are not involved; the possession, use, income, and disposal rights of the real estate and the courtyard belong to Wan xxx, and in the future, in the event of demolition, the rights and interests involving the courtyard and land compensation and resettlement of the real estate are enjoyed by Wan xx; in addition to the reasons of wan xx, if the agreement is dissolved or invalid, Zhang xx and Liu xx shall bear the responsibility and double the compensation for the property and courtyard of Wan xx; if conditions permit, Zhang xx and Liu xx are responsible for the real estate After the signing of this agreement, both parties shall not repent and shall strictly perform it."
In October 2020, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Liu filed a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the Enforcement Settlement Agreement and to require Mr. Wan to return the house and courtyard. At the same time, Mr. Wan filed a counterclaim demanding the return of the house as a price of 2.315 million yuan and interest and compensation of 5.43 million yuan (2.315 million yuan×2 + decoration costs of 800,000 yuan).
Court hearings
After trial, the court of first instance held that the land to be paid off was collectively owned land, That Mr. Wan was not a member of the rural collective economic organization, and that the clause in the Enforcement Settlement Agreement to use the house and land (courtyard) to cover the loan was invalid. Both parties were aware of the legality of the contract to cover the debt with the house and the courtyard when signing the Settlement Agreement, and in this case, the two parties still agreed that "in addition to the reasons of Wan xx, if this agreement is terminated or invalidated, Zhang xxx and Liu xxx shall bear the responsibility and double the compensation for the real estate and courtyard of Wan xxx as the price" is out of the true intention of both parties, which is a valid clause and should be performed. Zhang XX, knowing that it is a house on collective land, now requires confirmation that the agreement is invalid on the grounds that the agreement violates mandatory provisions, which violates the principle of good faith, and Wan xxx's demand that Zhang xx and Liu xx compensate 5.43 million yuan should be supported.
After the Enforcement Settlement Agreement was invalidated, the original lending relationship was not lost. Wan xxx should return the house and courtyard where Zhang xxx and Liu xx had reached the top of the debt, and Zhang xx and Liu xx should return the difference of 1.8 million yuan paid by Wan xx. Therefore, the judgment: The "Enforcement Settlement Agreement" is invalid; Wan xxx returns the real estate and courtyard in vacated; Zhang xxx and Liu xx return the difference 1.8 million yuan in difference between Wan xx; Zhang xx, Liu xx, pay wan xx 5.43 million yuan, etc. Zhang xxx and Liu xx appealed against the first-instance judgment, demanding that the judgment of "paying Wan xx 5.43 million yuan" be revoked and the royalties for the possession of the property be paid.
After trial, the court of second instance held that the case began with the repayment agreement reached between Zhang xxx, Liu xx, and Wan xx due to a loan dispute and confirmed by the court's civil mediation letter, after Which Zhang xx and Liu xx failed to perform the obligations set forth in the civil mediation document, the two parties reached an "Enforcement Settlement Agreement" during the enforcement procedure, and negotiated to use the house involved in the case to cover the loan owed.
The Implementation settlement agreement has been fulfilled and neither side has any objection to it. Mr. Wan has been using the house involved in the case for more than six years, and the transaction status has long been stable. When Zhang xxx and Liu xxx signed the "Enforcement Settlement Agreement", they clearly knew the state of the house involved in the case and the identity of Wan xxx, and now they filed a lawsuit in this case on the grounds that the house involved in the case was a house on rural collective land and Wan xxx was not a member of the collective economic organization, requesting confirmation that the "Enforcement Settlement Agreement" was invalid, contrary to the principle of good faith, and their behavior should not be protected by law and should be prohibited. In addition, Wan xxx's defense is that the village is being demolished, and the "Enforcement Settlement Agreement" states that "in the future, in the event of demolition, the rights and interests involving the courtyard of the real estate and the land compensation and resettlement are enjoyed by Wan xx, and Zhang xx and Liu xx have no rights and interests in this regard", so it is not excluded that Zhang xxx and Liu xxx may file a lawsuit in this case in order to obtain the benefits of demolition compensation and resettlement, and the exercise of their right of action is not legitimate. Wan X's defense at the first instance held that the "Enforcement Settlement Agreement" was valid, and only when Zhang X and Liu X requested confirmation that the agreement was invalid did they file a counterclaim. The purpose of the counterclaim is to set off or annex the claims of the present action. The existence of a counterclaim must be premised on this lawsuit, and if this lawsuit no longer exists, although it does not affect the existence of the counterclaim as an independent claim, it cannot be accepted as a counterclaim. If Mr. Wan continues to insist on the counterclaim' litigation claims, he may file a separate lawsuit with a people's court with jurisdiction. Therefore, the ruling revoked the first-instance judgment; rejected the lawsuits of Zhang xxx and Liu xx; and rejected Wan xx's counterclaims.
Typical
A lawsuit for confirmation is a lawsuit in which a party requests the people's court to confirm the existence or non-existence of a certain legal relationship. When a party claims a lawsuit for confirmation, the interest of the lawsuit is the basic requirement for the parties to exercise their right of action, and it is also the premise for the court to judge whether the parties' claims can be substantively tried, that is, "interests are the yardstick for measuring the right of action, and those who have no interests have no right to sue". The interests of litigation are used to exclude unnecessary litigation claims of the parties, so it can be determined that the interests of litigation can play a certain role in regulating the abuse of the right to sue.
The mainland has not yet clearly defined the interests of litigation required for prosecution, but Article 132 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "civil subjects shall not abuse their civil rights to harm the interests of the state, the societal public interest or the legitimate rights and interests of others", and Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "civil litigation shall follow the principle of good faith." The parties have the right to dispose of their civil rights and litigation rights within the scope prescribed by law", in the above-mentioned articles, it has been made clear that the interests of litigation are involved in the principle of good faith in the mainland, that is, the exercise of civil rights should follow the principle of proper exercise and prohibition of abuse of rights, and the right holder should properly exercise the right of action according to the purpose of the right.
In the context of the demolition or proposed demolition of the real estate, the seller suddenly filed a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the contract and to break the long-stable transaction state, and the deep purpose of the lawsuit is obvious, that is, to confirm the invalidity of the contract and return the property to its name, so as to obtain the benefit of demolition compensation and resettlement. Such litigation is guided by the violation of the principle of good faith and abuse of rights as a means to obtain improper benefits, and the exercise of the seller's right of action is not legitimate. Therefore, for lawsuits that do not have the interest of litigation, the court may dismiss them on the basis of the principle of good faith.