House seller colludes with property management to forge evidence; court imposes fine according to law.
Case Details:
During the National Day holiday in 2016, more than 20 cities across the country successively introduced new real estate policies, and in an instant, the situation took a dramatic turn. The once arrogant seller's market began to shift into a buyer's market. These regulatory measures have touched the "nerves" of the housing market! Under the new policies, disputes between buyers and sellers are set to surge once again. As both sides vie for their own interests, the tactics in this game are bound to become even more intense. Attorney Zhiming offers an example here for everyone's reference and consideration.
Looking back in time, in early 2015, citizen Cao XX signed the "Shenzhen Second-hand Housing Reservation Purchase and Intermediary Service Contract" with property owner Deng X on March 21. However, on March 30, 2015, coinciding with the introduction of real estate regulation policies, Deng X insisted on breaching the contract and refusing to sell. Outraged, Cao XX, as a returning client, once again engaged the Zhiming Law Firm's team to seek justice, and Attorney Zhang Qingping was assigned to represent him in filing a lawsuit.
During the litigation, the defendant, in an attempt to resist performance of the contract, submitted a certificate from the property management company to the court, claiming that his wife's younger sister resided there and should enjoy the right of first refusal. Attorney Zhang Qingping raised an objection, and after the court verified with the defendant's wife's younger sister, it was confirmed that she was not a resident and was not even aware of the situation of the building in question. At the second hearing, the defendant, with the cooperation of the property management company, again put forward the claim and certificate that the property was now occupied by his mother-in-law, insisting that it was objectively impossible to continue fulfilling the sale obligation, in an attempt to further resist performance of the house sale contract. Attorney Zhiming, accompanied by the plaintiff, went to the scene and took photos to confirm that the property in question was piled with clutter, covered in dust, and vacant with no one living there, and submitted this evidence to the court for determination.
Thanks to the effective legal aid provided by Attorney Zhiming, Cao XX won the case in both the first and second instance trials: not only was the housing sales contract ordered to continue to be performed, but the defendant was also ordered to bear 20% of the liquidated damages.
Additionally, given that the defendant, in collusion with the property management company, repeatedly submitted false evidence to obstruct the trial and disrupted courtroom order, the circumstances are egregious. The court accepted the opinion of the plaintiff's attorney and, pursuant to Article 111 of China's Civil Procedure Law, imposed a fine of RMB 50,000 on Deng XX, the party responsible for the false evidence, and a separate fine of RMB 50,000 on the property management company that cooperated in the fabrication of evidence. The defendant, dissatisfied with the ruling, applied for reconsideration, which was rejected, and the fine decision was upheld.
Case closure note:
This case involves a dispute over a housing sales contract, which is a relatively common type of civil and commercial litigation. The facts of the defendant's breach of contract are clear, and the evidence is sufficient. The defendant had no legitimate reason for the intentional breach. During the litigation, in order to evade legal liability, the defendant twice maliciously colluded with the property management company to submit false statements to the court, seriously obstructing the trial of the case. Ultimately, the court issued a fine decision, imposing civil penalties! This also serves as a warning to those involved: facts must be respected, the law must be obeyed. Skills may be played with, but the law cannot be trifled with; otherwise, punishment will follow, as demonstrated in this case. (All names mentioned above are pseudonyms.)
