Rules for Adjudication of Third-Party Revocation Actions (III)

Rules for Adjudication of Third-Party Revocation Actions (III)

13. How to determine the plaintiff's qualification in a lawsuit withdrawn by a third party

[Opinion of the First Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court]:

Not all outsiders can file a third-party revocation lawsuit, and the plaintiff in a third-party revocation lawsuit should be eligible. When judging the plaintiff's qualifications, the plaintiff's qualification shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, taking into account such conditions as "must be a person other than the party, and the civil rights of the subject matter have not been represented in another case", "must have a litigious interest in the subject matter of the other case (have a legal interest in the outcome of the handling of the other case)", "did not participate in the separate litigation for reasons other than oneself", and "whether it is a victim in a false lawsuit or malicious lawsuit".

[Source of opinion]: The First Division of Civil Trial of the Supreme People's Court, "Civil Trial Guidance and Reference", Vol. 70

14. Guiding Case No. 150: China Minsheng Bank Co., Ltd. Wenzhou Branch v. Zhejiang Shankou Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. and Qingtian Yiligao Shoes Co., Ltd., a lawsuit revoked by a third party

[Summary of the trial]:

If the right of priority for repayment of the price of the construction project and the right of mortgage point to the same subject matter, and the realization of the mortgage right is affected by the existence and scope of the right of priority of the payment of the price of the construction project, it shall be determined that the realization of the mortgage right has a legal interest in the outcome of the case of the priority right to be compensated for the price of the construction project, and the mortgagee has the qualification to file a third-party revocation lawsuit against the effective judgment confirming the priority right of payment of the construction project price.

The effective judgment of the court held that the object of the trial of a third-party revocation lawsuit is the effective judgment of the original case, and in order to ensure the authority and stability of the effective judgment, the filing and review of a third-party revocation lawsuit is stricter than that of ordinary civil cases.

As stated by Yamaguchi Construction, Article 292 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a third party initiates a lawsuit for revocation, it shall provide evidence that all or part of the content of the legally effective judgment, ruling or mediation document is wrong, that is, at the acceptance stage, it is necessary to conduct a substantive examination of whether the content of the original effective judgment is wrong from the perspective of evidentiary materials. However, the above-mentioned judicial interpretation provisions are still essentially provisions on the conditions for filing a lawsuit for revocation by a third party, and there is a difference between the evidentiary requirements for filing a lawsuit and the evidentiary requirements for the final substantive judgment, and the above-mentioned judicial interpretation does not mean that the third party must complete all the burden of proof when filing a lawsuit, and the third party shall provide preliminary evidence to prove that the original judgment may be erroneous and harms its civil rights and interests when initiating a revocation lawsuit.

Wenzhou Minsheng Bank had already provided evidence to prove that it was the mortgagee on the same subject matter when it filed the revocation lawsuit, and Yamaguchi Construction Company's request to participate in the discount of the mortgage or the distribution of the auction proceeds in accordance with the first item of the effective judgment of the original case would directly affect the priority of Wenzhou Minsheng Bank's creditor's rights, and the time limit from the completion and acceptance of the project involved in the case to the filing of the original lawsuit was far more than six months, and Yamaguchi Construction Company did not take action when it asserted that it exercised the priority right of the construction project price within six months. Arbitration and other methods with publicity effects.

Therefore, from the perspective of the review of the conditions for prosecution, Wenzhou Minsheng Bank has provided preliminary evidence to prove that the first item of the effective judgment of the original case may be erroneous and will damage the realization of its mortgage rights. He filed a lawsuit to revoke the first item of the main body of the effective judgment of the original case, which met the requirements for filing a lawsuit as prescribed by law.

Case Number: :(2017) Zhe 1125 Min Withdrawal No. 1 (2018) Zhe 11 Min Zhong No. 446 (2018) Zhe Min Shen No. 3524

15. Reference case: Liang XX, Yuan XX, etc., and Hao XX, Zhang XX and other third parties revoke the lawsuit dispute case

[Summary of the trial]:

The plaintiff in a third-party revocation action shall be a third party as provided for in Article 59 of the Civil Procedure Law. Where there is no other remedy and the original lawsuit is a false lawsuit, ordinary creditors must not be arbitrarily included in the scope of third parties.

The effective judgment of the court held that, firstly, Liang XX, Yuan XX and others were not third parties with independent claims in the original lawsuit. In this case, the case involved in the effective judgment of the original lawsuit filed by Liang XX and Yuan XX and others to request revocation is an inheritance dispute case, and Liang XX and Yuan XX and others do not have an independent right to claim in rem for the estate of Zhang XX and C involved in the inheritance dispute case, nor do they have rights such as the right of possession and domination that directly point to the house, and there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the house involved in the case belongs to Zhang XXA's illegally obtained property and should be used to give priority to the return of Liang XX, Yuan XX and others. Although the house was sealed by the enforcement court on the basis of the application of Liang XX and Yuan XX, the existence of the sealing measures only restricted the exercise of the rights of the relevant rights holders of the housing involved in the case, and could not enable Liang XX and Yuan XX to directly enjoy the rights such as the property rights of the house involved in the case, so Liang XX and Yuan XX did not have an independent right to claim the subject matter of the original inheritance case, and were not a third party with an independent right to claim in the original lawsuit. Second, Liang XX, Yuan XX and other six persons are not third parties who have no independent claim in the original lawsuit. According to the second paragraph of Article 59 of the Civil Procedure Law, a third party without an independent claim refers to a third party who has no independent claim for the subject matter of the original lawsuit, but has a legal interest in the outcome of the case. The legal interest shall refer to the interest in the rights and obligations of the entity. In this case, although the size of Zhang Moujia's actual inheritance share in the original lawsuit (inheritance dispute case) will directly affect the amount of Zhang Moujia's liability property, and then affect Zhang Moujia's actual solvency, the judgment result of the inheritance case will not lead to a change in the right of Liang Moumou and Yuan Moumou to obtain compensation from Zhang Moumou A as fundraising participants, and there is no legal implication between the judgment result of the original lawsuit and the fact that Liang Moumou and Yuan Moumou should obtain the restitution of losses based on their status as fundraising participants. It should be found that Liang XX, Yuan XX, and the other six persons only had a de facto interest in the outcome of the original litigation judgment, and that Liang XX, Yuan XX, and the other six persons did not have the status of a third party who did not have the right to make an independent claim in the original case. In addition, although Article 120 of the Minutes of the National Court Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference (Fa (2019) No. 254) includes creditors who meet specific circumstances into the category of third parties, Liang XX, Yuan XX and other six persons did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the litigation filed by the six of them in this case meets the three circumstances under which a third-party revocation lawsuit can be filed as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 120 of the Minutes of the National Court Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference (Fa (2019) No. 254). The filing of this lawsuit by Yuan XX and others does not meet the circumstances under which a creditor can file a lawsuit for revocation by a third party. To sum up, the six people, including Liang XX and Yuan XX, do not have the status conditions to participate in the litigation of the original case, and do not have the qualifications to be the plaintiffs in the lawsuit withdrawn by a third party in this case.

[Case document number] :(2023) Jin 0502 Min Withdrawal No. 2 (2023) Jin 05 Min Zhong No. 907

16. Gazette case: Zhang Mouyun, Zhu Moumin, Tian Moufang, a third-party revocation litigation dispute case

[Summary of the trial]:

The creditor filed a lawsuit for revocation by a third party, claiming that the debtor and the outsider obtained the mediation document through a separate false lawsuit, and took preservation measures against the debtor's property without actual enforcement, harming the legitimate interests of the creditor. Where, upon trial, the people's court finds that the civil lawsuit separately filed by the debtor and a person not involved in the case is a false lawsuit, the creditor's claim shall be supported.

[Case source]: Gazette of the Supreme People's Court, Issue 06, 2018

17. Bank of China Co., Ltd. Tianjin Branch, Liu Wei and other third parties revoked the lawsuit

【Focus of controversy】:

Did the Tianjin Branch of the Bank of China file a third-party revocation lawsuit within the statutory time limit?

[Referee's reasoning]:

On the issue of the determination of facts as to whether the third-party revocation lawsuit filed by the Tianjin Branch of the Bank of China within the statutory time limit. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 56 of the Civil Procedure Law, a lawsuit for revocation by a third party shall be filed within the statutory time limit, that is, within six months from the date on which the third party knows or should know that its civil rights and interests have been harmed. The period for initiating a third-party revocation lawsuit is calculated from the date on which the third party knows or should know that its civil rights and interests have been harmed. The so-called "knew or should have known" is based on the fact that the third party knew that the effective judgment, ruling, or mediation document had harmed their civil rights and interests, and should be comprehensively judged on the basis of specific circumstances such as whether the effective judgment document was served on the third party, whether the third party was involved in enforcement, and the relationship between the third party and the parties to the case. The criterion for judging a third party who does not have the right to make an independent claim is that he has a legal interest in the outcome of the case. Once a court judgment takes effect, its judgment conclusion has the force of res judicata and enforcement. Therefore, whether or not they know the full text of the judgment document is not the only criterion for judging whether they "knew or should have known that their civil rights and interests were harmed". According to the original review, Liu Wei applied for the enforcement of Judgment No. 551, and the Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court filed the case with (2018) Jin 02 Zhi No. 687, and questioned the Tianjin Branch of Bank of China on September 17, 2018, and made an enforcement record. It has clearly informed the contents of Case No. 551 and the judgment confirming that Liu Wei has the priority right to be compensated for the construction project price of the real estate involved in the case within the scope of the project price of 40,242,416.58 yuan, and has consulted the specific opinions of the Bank of China Tianjin Branch on this, and according to the record of the enforcement record, especially the corresponding statement of the Bank of China and the Bank of Tianjin, the Tianjin Branch of the Bank of China should have been aware of the conclusion of the No. 551 Judgment on September 17, 2018. The original trial court also ascertained that in the case of the execution of the loan dispute between the Tianjin Branch of the Bank of China and Fenghui Extension Company, Sun Yanda, Bai Junyan, Cui Zhaochen, Yang Wenjuan and Huaxuan Company, Liu Wei was dissatisfied with the Tianjin Branch of the Bank of China's receipt of the auction price of the real estate involved in the auction case of the Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court, and raised a written objection as an interested party, stating that the case of the construction contract dispute between him and Huaxuan Company was rendered by the Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court and the Tianjin High Court. Huaxuan Company shall pay Liu Wei 40,242,416.58 yuan for the project, and Liu Wei shall have the priority right to be compensated for the construction project price within the scope of the project price of 40,242,416.58 yuan. The court returned the auction price to the Tianjin branch of the Bank of China, which harmed Liu Wei's legitimate rights and interests. On February 27, 2019, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court issued the (2019) Jin 02 Zhi Yi No. 28 Enforcement Ruling, holding that Liu Wei's application was not based on sufficient grounds and ruling to reject Liu Wei's objection request. The court found that "in the case of a construction contract dispute between Liu Wei and Tianjin Huaxuan Investment Development Co., Ltd., this court filed the case on June 16, 2016, and rendered the (2016) Jin 02 Min Chu No. 432 Civil Judgment on May 23, 2017. On April 12, 2018, the Tianjin Higher People's Court rendered the (2017) Jin Min Zhong No. 551 Civil Judgment, confirming that Liu Wei has the priority right to be compensated for the construction project price within the scope of the project price of 40,242,416.58 yuan for the auction or sale price of the real estate located at No. 4 Jizhuangzi Road, Hexi District, Tianjin." Liu Wei was dissatisfied with the ruling and applied to the Tianjin High Court for reconsideration, namely the (2019) Jin Zhifu No. 34 Enforcement Case. In this case, in order to find out whether the litigation filed by Bank of China Tianjin Branch exceeded the statutory time limit, the court of first instance obtained the case file materials of the court (2019) Jin Zhifu No. 34 ex officio and disclosed them to all parties during the trial of the original trial. After investigation, Liu Wei's reconsideration application stated that the time was March 9, 2019, and the application clearly mentioned that the priority of the construction project price enjoyed by the reconsideration applicant Liu Wei had been confirmed by the Tianjin High People's Court in an effective civil judgment. On March 20, 2019, the court sent the above-mentioned application for reconsideration to BOC Tianjin Branch through the Court Special Mail Service (EMS). On May 8, 2019, the court held a hearing on the enforcement reconsideration case, and in the hearing transcript, the court informed the Tianjin Branch of Bank of China that the (2019) Jin 02 Zhiyi No. 28 Enforcement Ruling was made on February 27, 2019, and on the same day, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court mailed it to both parties by EMS; Liu Wei filed an application for reconsideration on March 9, 2019, which was in accordance with the law. Special explanation to Bank of China Tianjin Branch. The Tianjin branch of the Bank of China said it "understood". This court held that the trial court's comprehensive judgment based on the above-mentioned ascertained facts and its judgment that "Bank of China Tianjin Branch should have known the conclusion of the (2017) Jin Min Zhong No. 551 Civil Judgment by March 2019 at the latest" and made a finding that "Bank of China Tianjin Branch filed this lawsuit on October 22, 2019, which exceeded the statutory time limit of six months". The appellant's argument that "the original trial court ignored the fact that the parties could not know whether the judgment was wrong when it only knew the result of a certain judgment but did not know the full text of the judgment" and that "the court began to make a judgment unfavorable to the appellant based on the disputed No. 551 judgment, and only then began to infringe on the appellant's legitimate rights and interests". The appellant's assertion that "the original trial court erred in determining the facts" did not provide sufficient evidence to support it, and this court did not accept it.

Case Number: :(2021) Supreme Law Min Zhong No. 816

Transferred from the same judgment rule for similar cases