Li Xiaohua Law Firm's second instance agency contract dispute case

By Wanglin lawyer，Shanghai Lixiaohua Lawfirm

Commercial dispute cases

1. Basic facts

The first instance court ruled that "all lawsuits of the plaintiff have been dismissed." The A village committee is dissatisfied with the first instance judgment and has appealed to the court, requesting to remand or re judge B company for retrial, and refund 17 million yuan of land compensation and corresponding interest to the A village committee.

The appellant believes that the nature of the disputed funds should be subsidies or compensation paid to the appellant or all villagers after negotiation; In addition to paying the statutory land acquisition fee to the state, the expropriation act of the appeal should also be carried out by a third party on a contemporary basis.

Related laws and regulations

Article 177 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: After hearing an appeal case, the people's court of second instance shall handle it according to the following circumstances: (1) If the original judgment or ruling has clearly determined the facts and correctly applied the law, the appeal shall be rejected by way of judgment or ruling, and the original judgment or ruling shall be upheld;

2. Controversy focus

Is there any legal basis for the appellant to request the respondent to refund the disputed amount of 17 million yuan and corresponding interest?

3. Proxy strategy

Li Xiaohua Law Firm has entrusted Lawyer Wang Lin to continue representing Company B in the second trial. Lawyer's opinion:

1) The Joint Development Agreement signed between the respondent and a third party is legal and valid. The original judgment, based on the principle of contractual relativity, determined that the appellant was not a party to the contract and should be supported;

2) The "evidence" provided by respondent B company contains more evidence than the form and content submitted by the appellant;

3) If the disputed collective land is expropriated according to legal procedures, the appellant has obtained all statutory land compensation fees in accordance with the law. The original judgment found that the appellant's claim to the respondent for land compensation fees did not meet the conditions and lacked legal basis. The facts are clear and the application of the law is correct, which should be supported.

4. Court ruling

The court believes that the existing evidence is insufficient to deny the authenticity of the Joint Development Agreement involved in this case. The appellant's appeal request cannot be established and should be rejected; The first instance judgment should be supported as it clearly establishes the facts and correctly applies the law.

Legal judgment: Reject the appeal and uphold the original verdict.

5. Compliance insights

Enterprises should strengthen the construction of compliance systems, use precise legal and intelligent compliance legal service products, hire external lawyers to regularly carry out the construction and inspection of compliance systems, and prevent legal risks.

Li Xiaohua Law Firm is a recommended law firm by the US Consulate, with senior lawyers, law professors, PhDs, bilingual master's degree holders studying abroad, and foreign-related legal talents.

Professional field:

Company law, foreign-related legal services, foreign-related marriage inheritance, etc

About the Author

Wanglin is a Executive Director at Shanghai Lixiaohua Lawfirm, License No.

13101200611138038

Email: lxh@lxh-lawfirm.com

Tel：+86 21 63858668

Mobile：+86-15201864468