Case introduction:

Kodak and Ni Konjia are relatives. Ni Konjia obtained the housing purchase quota for purchasing affordable housing in 2002. For this reason, Kodak I found Ni Kangjia and hoped that he could lend him the house purchase quota, and he would finance the purchase of the house involved in the lawsuit in a community in Dongcheng District, Beijing. Ni Kangjia immediately agreed to Kodak's request to borrow the house, and the two parties agreed that Kodak would pay the down payment, purchase the house in Ni Konjia's name, and apply for a mortgage loan in Ni Konjia's name for the remaining balance. After the two parties reached an agreement, Ni Kangjia signed the "Beijing Affordable Housing Pre-Sale Contract" with a real estate development company in Beijing on February 18, 2002, stipulating that Ni Kangjia would purchase the house involved in the lawsuit, and the total price of the house was 44. Ten thousand yuan, Kodak paid a down payment of 100,000 yuan, and Ni Kangjia applied for a mortgage loan on March 5 for the remaining balance, with a loan term of 20 years. After the house was delivered, Kodak carried out renovations. After the renovation, he actually moved into the disputed house.

In 2005, Kodak paid the final payment of 50,000 yuan for the house to the real estate development company. On December 20, 2005, the house ownership certificate was issued, the owner was registered as Ni Kangjia, and the house was classified as affordable housing.

Between 2005 and 2014, when housing prices began to rise, Kodak approached Ni Konjia many times to request transfer of ownership, but Ni Konjia refused for various reasons. In August 2014, Kodak couldn't bear it anymore and sued Ni Kangjia to the People's Court of Dongcheng District, requesting the People's Court to sentence Ni Kangjia to transfer the house involved in the lawsuit to his own name. After hearing the case, the Dongcheng District People's Court held that the two parties had purchased the house under a borrowed name. The contract violated the mandatory provisions of relevant laws and regulations, violated national policies, and infringed on the interests of the public. Therefore, the house sales contract between the two parties was ruled invalid and Kodak's lawsuit was dismissed. It is reported that the judgment of the People's Court has taken effect.

On September 18, 2015, Kodak sued Ni Konjia to the People’s Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing, requiring him to return the purchase price, housing loan and other related funds, and to compensate for losses caused by the appreciation of the house.

Trial result:

Beijing Dongcheng District People’s Court ruled after trial:

1. The defendant Ni Kangjia returned the plaintiff Kodak within fifteen days after the judgment took effect. The purchase price and other payments total 45 yuan.

2. Defendant Ni Kangjia shall compensate Kodak for 180 yuan in lost value of the house within 15 days after the judgment

3. Reject plaintiff Kodak’s other claims.

Jin Shuangquan, a lawyer specializing in house purchase disputes in a borrowed name, analyzed:

This case is a typical case of returning the house payment and compensating for the loss in appreciation of the house after the contract to buy a house in a borrowed name was invalid.

Lawyer Jin Shuangquan believes that the key points of the court’s decision in this case are: in 2014, the court ruled that the contract for buying a house in the name of both parties was invalid because it violated relevant national policies and was detrimental to the interests of the public.

In this case, Kodak sued Ni Kangjia to the People’s Court of Dongcheng District in 2014, requesting the court to rule that Ni Kangjia transfer the property involved in the lawsuit to his own name, and the People’s Court ruled between the two parties after a trial in accordance with the law. The contract to buy a house in your name is invalid. According to Article 58 of my country’s Contract Law: “After the contract is invalid or revoked, the property acquired as a result of the contract shall be returned; if it cannot be returned or is unnecessary, it shall be compensated at a discount. The party at fault shall compensate the other party Both parties are at fault for the losses they have suffered and should bear corresponding responsibilities. "The plaintiff's request for the defendant to return the house payment in 2014 is well-founded in law and should be supported.

The plaintiff in this case has fulfilled its obligation to pay the down payment in accordance with the contract, but the defendant has not fulfilled its obligation to transfer the property. According to the provisions of Article 6 of my country's "Contract Law": "The parties exercise their rights and perform their obligations. "The principle of good faith should be followed." The defendant's failure to perform the transfer obligations as agreed has violated the "Emperor" clause in my country's "General Principles of Civil Law" and other relevant civil laws - the principle of good faith. Judging from the degree of fault in this case, the defendant has violated the principle of good faith. There is a major error.

Therefore, the court’s ruling that the defendant should compensate for the loss of increased value of the house is well-founded in law, embodies the principle of fairness and justice, and safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of the non-breaching party, the plaintiff in this case.

In this regard, lawyer Jin Shuangquan believes that the court’s decision is correct.