Recently, Lawyer Gao Ying, a partner of Gaopeng Law Firm, and Lawyer Jiang Hua, a team of lawyers, have achieved good results in 11 cases of external execution objections and execution objections. These series of cases have been successfully concluded by the applicant for execution reaching an execution settlement with the person being executed, and the applicant for execution withdrawing the application for execution objections.

Basic facts of the case

The developer started selling the house in 2010, but due to not obtaining a pre-sale permit, they requested to sign a "Loan Agreement" with the buyer first, collect the down payment from the buyer and issue corresponding receipts. After obtaining the pre-sale permit, they signed a "Subscription Agreement" with the buyer in batches in 2014 and 2015, delivered the house to the buyer, and the buyer decorated and moved in the house, Afterwards, the homebuyer repeatedly urged the developer to sign the "Commercial Housing Purchase and Sale Contract", but failed to sign it.

In 2018, the buyer learned that their house was about to be auctioned by the court, so they raised an objection to execution. However, after being rejected, they were unable to file an objection to execution within 15 days due to objective reasons. In 2019, the buyer raised another objection to execution, and the court rejected the objection on the grounds that the buyer had repeatedly raised an objection to execution. Buyers have no choice but to seek solutions through petition reporting, online assistance, and other means, but the results have been minimal. The later homebuyer entrusts our lawyer to assist in safeguarding their rights and protecting the house that the homebuyer has invested all their family's efforts to purchase.

picture

Focus of Case Dispute

After accepting the commission, our lawyer carefully analyzed the evidence materials and provided the buyer with a detailed understanding of their purchase, occupancy, and rights protection processes. Due to the execution objection lawsuit filed by 31 other buyers in the same situation as the 11 buyers in this case, the second instance court upheld the objection request raised by the outsider and lifted the lockdown of the house, Our lawyers have successfully initiated the execution objection procedure again in accordance with Article 3 of the "Minutes of the Symposium of the Directors of the Beijing Municipal Court Executive Bureau (11th Meeting) - Opinions on Several Issues Concerning Objections by Foreign Parties Involved in the Execution Work".

The main focus of controversy in this series of cases is whether the buyer and developer only signed the "Loan Agreement" and "Subscription Agreement", but did not sign the formal "Commercial Housing Purchase and Sale Contract", which meets the conditions of Article 29 (1) of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objection and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Court" that "a legal and valid written sales contract has been signed before the People's Court seals it down".

The judge handling the first execution objection case believes that the "Subscription Agreement" is only an appointment contract and not a formally registered commercial housing sales contract, and does not meet the conditions specified above. Our lawyer, based on the content of two agreements, advocates that the "Loan Agreement" stipulates the house number, area, and housing price, and is not a true loan agreement. Instead, it establishes a de facto legal relationship between the house purchase and sale contract. Taking into account the fact that the buyer has already paid a portion of the purchase price and the developer has delivered the house, it can be determined that this case meets the conditions of Article 29 (1) of the "Implementation Objection and Reconsideration Provisions" mentioned above. Our lawyer's claim has been recognized by the judge handling the second execution objection case, ruling that the buyer's execution objection is valid and suspending the execution of the property involved in the case.

The applicant for enforcement filed an appeal against the ruling, and during the trial of the case, the applicant and the person subjected to enforcement reached an enforcement settlement and withdrew the appeal against enforcement in 11 cases. This series of enforcement objections and enforcement objections were successfully resolved.