| Six Model Cases of Serving and Guaranteeing the Coordinated Development of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region by People's Courts Published by the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院发布六起人民法院服务保障京津冀协同发展典型案例 |
| (October 9, 2023) | | （2023年10月9日） |
| The coordinated development of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region is a major national strategy planned, deployed, and promoted personally by General Secretary Xi Jinping. In May this year, General Secretary Xi Jinping presided over a symposium on promoting the in-depth coordinated development of the Region. He stressed that all work should be done in a more energetic and ambitious spirit and efforts should be made to constantly upgrade the coordinated development of the Region to a new level and build the Region to a pilot area and a demonstration area of the Chinese-style modernization. In recent years, the people's courts have conscientiously implemented the instructions and requirements of General Secretary Xi Jinping, given full play to judicial functions, and proactively integrated into and served the overall situation of the coordinated development of the Region, achieving positive results. The Fifth Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Judicial Forum was held in Tianjin Municipality on September 26, 2020. Zhang Jun, Secretary of the Leading Party Members' Group and President of the Supreme People's Court, attended the forum and delivered a speech. He stressed that we should further enhance the consciousness and capability of "working from a political perspective and on the rule of law," make thorough and concrete efforts to serve the overall situation, implement justice for the people, consciously undertake the duty and mission of serving, guaranteeing, and further promoting the coordinated development of the Region, implement judicial activism by centering on key tasks in the coordinated development of the Region, and constantly improve the capability of serving and guaranteeing the coordinated development of the Region. In order to conscientiously implement the spirit of the speech delivered by the President Zhang Jun, further guide the people's courts at all levels in handling the relevant cases, and provide more effective judicial services and guarantees for building the Region to a pilot area and demonstration area for the construction of Chinese-style modernization, model cases on serving and guaranteeing the coordinated development of the Region by people's courts in recent years are hereby released for reference to the people's courts at all levels. | | 京津冀协同发展是习近平总书记亲自谋划、亲自部署、亲自推动的重大国家战略。今年5月，习近平总书记主持召开深入推进京津冀协同发展座谈会，强调以更加奋发有为的精神状态推进各项工作，推动京津冀协同发展不断迈上新台阶，努力使京津冀成为中国式现代化建设的先行区、示范区。近年来，人民法院认真贯彻落实习近平总书记指示要求，充分发挥司法职能，积极融入和服务京津冀协同发展大局，取得积极成效。9月26日，第五届京津冀司法论坛在天津召开，最高人民法院党组书记、院长张军出席会议并讲话，强调要进一步增强“从政治上看、从法治上办”的自觉和能力，做深做实为大局服务、为人民司法，自觉担当起服务保障深入推进京津冀协同发展的职责使命，围绕京津冀协同发展重点任务做深做实能动司法，不断提升服务保障京津冀协同发展的能力水平。为认真贯彻落实张军院长讲话精神，进一步指导各级人民法院办好相关案件，为京津冀打造中国式现代化建设的先行区、示范区提供更加有力的司法服务和保障，现发布近年来人民法院服务保障京津冀协同发展典型案例，供各级法院参鉴。 |
| Table of Contents | | 案例目录 |
| Case No. 1: Hou [REDACTED] et al. v. Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company (A series of cases of disputes over lease contracts) | | 案例1：侯某某等诉北京市某服装商城公司租赁合同纠纷系列案件 |
| Case No. 2: Beijing A Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. v. Beijing B Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (An enforcement case of dispute over the right of recovery) | | 案例2：北京市某甲汽车部件股份有限公司与北京市某乙汽车部件有限公司追偿权纠纷执行案 |
| Case No. 3: Hebei Branch of [REDACTED] Asset Management Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang [REDACTED] Shipping Co., Ltd. and Chen [REDACTED] (A commissioned enforcement case of dispute over a loan contract) | | 案例3：某资产管理股份有限公司河北省分公司与某海运有限公司、陈某借款合同纠纷委托执行案 |
| Case No. 4: Zhang [REDACTED] v. [REDACTED] Railway Passenger Dedicated Line Co., Ltd. (A case of dispute over noise pollution liability) | | 案例4：张某某与某铁路客运专线有限公司噪声污染责任纠纷案 |
| Case No. 5: Tangshan [REDACTED] Labor Service Company v. Beijing [REDACTED] Electromechanical Equipment Installation Engineering Company (A case of dispute over a construction equipment lease contract) | | 案例5：唐山市某劳务公司诉北京市某机电设备安装工程公司建筑设备租赁合同纠纷案 |
| Case No. 6: People v. Dong [REDACTED], Ma [REDACTED] et al. for Theft and People v. Chai [REDACTED] and Xu [REDACTED] for Covering up and Concealing Proceeds of Crime | | 案例6：董某、马某某等人盗窃、柴某某、许某某掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得案 |
| Case No. 1: Hou [REDACTED] et al. v. Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company (A series of cases of disputes over lease contracts) | | 案例1：侯某某等诉北京市某服装商城公司租赁合同纠纷系列案件 |
| Basic Facts of the Case | | 基本案情 |
| Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company rented a building under the name of Beijing [REDACTED] Research Institute located in Wenxing Street, Xicheng District, Beijing Municipality and engaged in the shop leasing business. Plaintiff Hou [REDACTED] and other persons signed lease contracts with defendant Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company. It was agreed that plaintiff and other persons rented the shops of defendant for engaging in the business of clothes and garments, with the rentals to be paid in installments. In the process of undergoing formalities of industrial and commercial registration and tax registration, plaintiff Hou [REDACTED] and other persons learned that the shops leased by defendant did not meet lease conditions. Defendant promised to make coordination efforts, but such formalities did not work. Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company is located in the Zoo Clothing Whole-Sale Market, which is listed as a key area in Beijing where non-capital functions should be relocated. Plaintiff Hou [REDACTED] and other persons filed lawsuits with the Primary People's Court of Xicheng District as the lease contracts signed by them and defendant failed to be continuously performed. They claimed that the lease contracts should be rescinded and the rentals should be refunded. Such cases involved more than a hundred merchants. | | 北京市某服装商城公司承租了北京市某研究总院名下位于北京市西城区文兴街某房屋经营商铺租赁业务。原告侯某某等与被告北京市某服装商城公司签订租赁合同，约定原告侯某某等承租被告商铺用于经营服装服饰，租金分期支付。原告侯某某等在办理工商登记和税务登记过程中得知被告所出租的商铺不具备出租条件。被告承诺负责协调办理始终未果。北京市某服装商城公司地处动物园服装批发市场，该商圈被列为北京非首都功能疏解重点区域，原告侯某某等因与北京市某服装商城公司签订的租赁合同无法继续履行诉至北京市西城区人民法院，要求解除租赁合同并返还租金，案件涉及百余商户。 |
| Results of Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| In the effective judgment, the people's court held that the shop lease contracts signed by plaintiff Hou [REDACTED] and other persons and Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company were the true declaration of intention of both parties and did not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. Therefore, they should be legal and valid. As Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company did not meet the requirements for applying for business licenses for individual industrial and commercial households of shop operators in the mall, plaintiff Hou [REDACTED] and other persons failed to apply for such business licenses and engage in licensed operation in their own name. Plaintiff Hou [REDACTED] and other persons claimed rescission of the contracts with justifiable reasons and such claims should be supported. Although Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company delivered the shops involved to plaintiff Hou [REDACTED] and other persons after signing of the contracts, the mall did not open and they failed to do business as normal. Therefore, the rentals of the shops before opening of the mall should be refunded. After opening of the mall, plaintiff Hou [REDACTED] and other persons may do business in the shops and gain operating income. Therefore, they should bear the rentals of the shops during the period of actual use. The people's court finally decided that the contracts should be rescinded and defendant should refund the rentals for the period during which plaintiff Hou [REDACTED] and other persons did not actually use the shops. In the course of enforcement of the judgment of the case, some shop merchants were not compensated as Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company had no property available for enforcement. The trial and enforcement departments of the people's court took joint actions and proactively urged Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company and Beijing [REDACTED] Research Institute to reach a mediation agreement on rental refund, according to which Beijing [REDACTED] Research Institute remitted the prepaid rentals, deposit, compensation, and other amounts refundable to Beijing [REDACTED] Clothing Mall Company to the bank account of the people's court. The people's court collectively returned the rentals to the lessees. All shop merchants' rentals were fully paid and the series of cases were smoothly closed. | | 人民法院生效判决认为，原告侯某某等与北京市某服装商城公司之间签订的商铺租赁合同系双方当事人的真实意思表示，不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，应为合法有效。因北京市某服装商城公司不具备办理市场内摊商个体工商户营业执照条件，致使原告侯某某等无法按照合同约定以自己的名义办理个体工商户营业执照持证经营。现原告侯某某等要求解除合同，理由正当，应予支持。北京市某服装商城公司在合同签订后虽将涉案商铺交付原告侯某某等，但商城尚未开业亦无法正常经营，故商城开业之前商铺租金应予退还。商城开业之后，原告侯某某等实际经营商铺并获得经营收益，故原告侯某某等应承担商铺实际使用期间的商铺租金。最终判决解除合同，由被告返还原告侯某某等未实际使用租赁商铺期间的租金费用。在案件执行过程中，北京市某服装商城公司因无可供执行财产导致部分商户无法受偿。法院审执部门联动积极促成北京市某服装商城公司与北京市某研究总院达成退租调解协议，将应返还北京市某服装商城公司的预付租金、押金、补偿款等款项汇入法院账户，并集中发还给租户，全部商户租金受偿完毕，该系列案件得以顺利执结。 |
| Typical Significance | | 典型意义 |
| The relocation of the Zoo Wholesale Market is a link in the coordinated development of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region and the relocation of non-capital functions. The Zoo Wholesale Market after relocation will be built into an international culture and technology park on the south central axis line, which is a key project in the core area of a national financial and technological demonstration zone. It is of great significance for industrial upgrading and transformation and urban quality and efficiency improvement. However, as the property rights in the Zoo Wholesale Market are decentralized and there are many proprietors and a wide range of merchants, the legitimate rights and interests of all merchants should be protected in the relocation and steady progress should be made on the track of the rule of law. In the enforcement of the said series of cases, the people's courts stuck to the principle of judicial activism, set up a special case team, strengthened pretrial mediation, and guided the clients to accept their judgments and stop the litigation by pronouncing judgments in a centralized manner and answering questions fully. After the case was closed, through joint action between the trial and enforcement departments, the people's court grasped information on the trials of cases associated with the party against whom enforcement was sought and controlled the property that was likely to be obtained by the person against whom enforcement was sought through judgments where the person won in a timely manner, so as to ensure the effective protection of rights and interests of all parties. | | 北京市动物园批发市场商圈的疏解系京津冀协同发展和非首都功能疏解工作中的一环，疏解后的北京市动物园批发市场商圈将建成南中轴国际文化科技园，是国家级金融科技示范区核心区的重点项目，对于产业升级改造、城市提质增效意义重大。但北京市动物园批发市场商圈市场产权分散、业主单位众多、经营商户群体广，疏解工作必须要维护各商户的合法权益，在法治轨道上稳步推进。人民法院在该系列案件的审执过程中，坚持能动司法，成立专案小组，加大庭前调解力度，并通过集中宣判、充分答疑引导商户服判息诉。案件审结后通过审执联动及时掌握被执行人关联案件审理情况，对被执行人可能通过胜诉裁决取得的财产及时控制，确保各方当事人权益得到有效保护。 |
| Case No. 2: Beijing A Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. v. Beijing B Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (An enforcement case of dispute over the right of recovery) | | 案例2：北京市某甲汽车部件股份有限公司与北京市某乙汽车部件有限公司追偿权纠纷执行案 |
| Basic Facts of the Case | | 基本案情 |
| For the case of dispute over the right of recovery between plaintiff Beijing A Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Company A") and defendant Beijing B Automotive Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Company B"), the Primary People's Court of Pinggu District, Beijing Municipality rendered an effective judgment that defendant Company B should pay plaintiff Company A the indemnity of 19,099,205.87 yuan and the interest; and plaintiff had the priority in receiving compensation from the cut-rate price of the guarantee in the contract involved or the proceeds from auction or selling-off of such guarantee within the scope of the aforesaid claims. After the judgment came into force, Company A applied for enforcement of the judgment with the Primary People's Court of Pinggu District, Beijing Municipality as the party against whom enforcement was sought, Company B, failed to voluntarily perform the obligations. | | 原告北京市某甲汽车部件股份有限公司（以下简称甲公司）与被告北京市某乙汽车部件有限公司（以下简称乙公司）追偿权纠纷一案，北京市平谷区人民法院作出生效判决，判令被告乙公司给付原告甲公司代偿款19 099 205.87元及利息；原告有权以案涉合同约定的抵押物折价或者以拍卖、变卖所得的价款在上述债权范围内优先受偿。判决生效后，因被执行人乙公司未主动履行义务，甲公司向北京市平谷区人民法院申请强制执行。 |
| Enforcement Progress | | 执行情况 |
| The party against whom enforcement was sought, Company B, was originally a Sino-Korean joint venture registered and operated in Pinggu District, Beijing Municipality. Due to poor business operations and large amounts of debts, it has been involved in several cases in Beijing Municipality and Hebei Province as a person against whom enforcement was sought. In another case, the Primary People's Court of Qingyuan District, Baoding City, Hebei Province was the first court that seized the land use rights, the plant, and above-ground appendages under the name of Company B. In this case, the Primary People's Court of Pinggu District, Beijing Municipality was the first court that seized the machinery equipment and manufacturing facilities in the plant of Company B. After the land use rights, plant and above-ground appendages under the name of Company B were appraised and auctioned, as the disposal of large machinery equipment was blocked, the buyer could not enter the plant to operate. The creditors had urged Company B to sell the equipment for repayment of debts for several times. The managers of Company B changed frequently, giving rise to poor communication, the enforcement of the judgment entered bottleneck for a time. After learning the above situation, the Primary People's Court of Pinggu District, took the initiative to contact the Primary People's Court of Qingyuan District, Baoding City to consult on the issues concerning enforcement of movable equipment and vacation of immovable property and above-ground properties involved in the enforcement by the two courts. They developed a work plan, jointly organized the parties to have cross-court talks, and preliminarily reached a consistent consultation plan. Later, the enforcement bureaus of the two people's courts jointly convened the creditors, the buyer, the Korean representative of the party against whom enforcement was sought, and other representatives of the parties to attend the meeting on the return and disposal of properties. Finally, the following consensuses were reached: ensuring that the entry of the buyer into the plant and the disposal of movable properties be carried out simultaneously, urging the Korean representative of Company B to issue written opinions in a letter, and conducting sequential distribution of the funds subject to enforcement. The efforts of the enforcement bureaus have laid a solid foundation for the cooperative enforcement by the people's courts in Beijing and Hebei. | | 本案被执行人乙公司原属北京市平谷区登记注册、经营办厂的中韩合资企业，因为经营不善、欠债较多，在北京、河北两地有多起作为被执行人的案件。河北省保定市清苑区人民法院在另案中首先查封了该公司名下的土地使用权、厂房及地上附属物，北京市平谷区人民法院在本案中首先查封了该公司厂房内的机械设备、生产设施。在被执行人乙公司名下的土地使用权、厂房及地上附属物被评估拍卖后，因为大型机器设备处置遇阻，买受人迟迟无法完成进场经营，而债权人又多次催促变卖设备偿还债务，被执行人乙公司管理人员频繁变动、沟通不畅，一时间案件执行进入瓶颈。了解到上述情况后，北京市平谷区人民法院主动联系河北省保定市清苑区人民法院，就两院执行中涉及的动产设备设施执行、不动产及地上物腾退等问题进行磋商，制定工作方案，并联合组织当事人进行跨院谈话，初步达成了一致的协商方案。后两院执行局联合召集债权人、买受人、被执行人韩方代表等当事人代表参加财产腾退处置会议，最终达成保障买受人进场与动产处置程序同步进行、督促被执行人乙公司韩方代表出函发表书面意见、执行案款顺位分配等几项重要共识，为京冀两家法院协作执行打下坚实基础。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |