[cases] owners sued the industry, should follow the principle of "one case one v."

  • Created:
  • / Author: Aaron Lewis
[Main points.The claim relates to the legal relationship, one is the owner of the owners of the General Assembly resolution of the cancellation right; the two is the owner of the general meeting of owners of the right to know; three is the owner will sign contract with an outsider's right of revocation of industry; four is the owners of the General Assembly the convening right. Combined with the park is too small, the owners of the rules of procedure, the exercise of rights according to different, the right exercise program and the relief, the request of different parties involved in different subjects, the rights and obligations between the parties is different, and the legal consequences of the accountability is also different, thereforeWang Min in this case the request will be advocated, does not meet the civil adjudicate conditions. The court interpretation, Wang Min also did not make clear its requests, it brought the lawsuit does not conform to the basic principles of our civil procedure law "a case of a v.".To sum up, the hospital in accordance with the "PRC Civil Procedure Law" article 108th (three), article 140th (three) the provisions of item, ruling as follows:Dismissed the plaintiff prosecute Wang Min. ] 


Wang Min and Beijing Haidian District park is too small, the owners of the Committee owners the right to revoke the contract dispute

-- Beijing Haidian District people's Court (2008-12-5)


Beijing Haidian District people's court
Civil ruling
(2008) the sea issued Spain in the early Republican word no. 32432
Plaintiff: Wang Min, female, born in September 22, 1963, Han nationality, Beijing Anyi Sanitary Articles Co. Ltd. manager, live (omitted).

Agent Shen Li, Beijing Taize lawyer.

Attorney: Lei Lei, lawyer of Beijing taize.

The defendant Beijing city Haidian District park is too small, the owners of the committee, Beijing city Haidian District domicile too dated Park District 10 Building 1 room 105.

For Wang Jiawu, director.

Agent Meng Xiansheng, Beijing Renhe firm lawyers.

Agent Zheng Jufang, Beijing Renhe firm lawyers.

The court the plaintiff and defendant Wang Min Beijing Haidian District park is too small, the owners of the Committee (hereinafter referred to as the industry authority) owners revocation right dispute case, according to the law of the trial, the trial of this case has been completed.

The plaintiff Wang Minsu said, in 2005 September, Wang Min and many other industry in the park is too small, the owners do not knowingly held in the park is too small, the resolution the first session of the second meeting of owners, through multiple resolution. In April 5, 2008, the industry in the park is too small, so many owners unknowingly held in 2008, the park is too small owners interim meeting, claimed that the conference resolution passed to the industry through public bidding invitation form holding company of property issues. In 2008 September, Wang Min learned that the industry has now too dated Park residential property services company, Beijing's property management limited liability company to court, demanding its withdrawal too dated park area, and the industry as early as in June 12, 2008, has been with the new owners of property companies - Beijing public service XinDa property Services Co. liability company signed the contract of property service. These important rights exercised by the majority of the owners of the industry in unilateral exercise, and as the owner of Wang Min was later informed. The industry is not in accordance with the "provisions of the park is too small, the owners of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly", the general meeting of owners issue votes sent to Wang Min, Wang Min as the owners did not participate in the temporary owners' conference 2008. Even some owners involved in the topic of the meeting to vote, but it is understood also in the industry did not explain the true purpose of the meeting under the condition of the vote, the vote is not true, can not represent the true will of the majority of the owners. Put forward different views on Wang Min, the industry also rejected Wang Min to verify and check the owners vote. Now Wang Min disagrees with the industry to select a new property company, and the owners spontaneous investigation, district currently has more than 600 signatures of the owners disagreed with the replacement property company. Wang Min has sent a letter to the industry and related departments require the owners interim meeting, whether the replacement property companies and other matters to a vote, but the industry is still not held, also not to make any reply. The requested action is taken to court: Wang Min, 1, cancel the industry authority on September 25, 2005 announced "the park is too small, the first session of the second meeting of owners of the resolution", released in April 5, 2008 2008 "too dated park owners interim meeting resolution" and the industry and the Beijing public service letter of the property services limited liability company signed property service contract; 2, asked to see the 2005 "the park is too small, the first session of the second meeting of owners of the resolution", "too dated park area 2008 owners interim meeting resolution" bill vote, the owners meeting of the general assembly to the book, record, sign representation of authorization and written for the owners of all documents, materials; 3 any industry "too dated Park residential property owners in accordance with the rules of procedure of the General Assembly", immediately convened session of the owners' Congress; 4, any industry in the "owners of the general assembly convened owners will agree to replace Beijing's monthly property management limited liability company, agree to replace a member the park is too small, the owners committee, vote on the issue to the owners of the election committee" as owners of the interim meeting.

After review, on the basis of the park is too small, the owners of the rules of procedure, including second and three of the provisions, the owners are divided into regular meetings and interim meetings, which have more than half of the owners or the owners of more than 20% proposal, the occurrence of major or the need for timely emergency treatment, relates to the regional property management of public interests, the owners commissioned Property Management Manager proposal, convene an interim meeting of the owners of the general assembly. A general meeting of owners responsible Committee organized by the owners, the owners committee did not convene a general meeting of owners in accordance with the above provisions, the owners of more than 20% recommendation representatives convened. The provisions of article tenth, a general meeting of owners record, sign thin, representatives of attorney and written comments of all relevant documents by the owners of the Committee for safekeeping, all owners or interested person shall have the right to ask to see at any time, the owners of the committee shall not refuse. The provisions of article thirteenth, property management companies, the formulation and revision of the Convention on the owners, owners of the rules of procedure, subject to the region by all the owners to vote by more than 2/3 votes through, to be valid.

In the lawsuit, the legal relationship of the Institute, the case involving the release of interpretation, Wang Min insisted on this case litigation request.

This house believes that, according to Wang Min v. facts, reasons and litigation request, are related to the owners of the local industry will exercise the right of owners, but the claim relates to the legal relationship, one is the owner of the owners of the General Assembly resolution of the cancellation right; the two is the owner of the general meeting of owners with the situation right; three is the owner will sign contract with an outsider's right of revocation of industry; four is the owners of the General Assembly the convening right. Combined with the park is too small, the owners of the rules of procedure, the exercise of rights according to different, the right exercise program and the relief, the request of different parties involved in different subjects, the rights and obligations between the parties is different, and the legal consequences of the accountability is also different, so Wang Min in this case the request will be advocate, not in conformity with the civil litigation proceedings conditions. The court interpretation, Wang Min also did not make clear its requests, it brought the lawsuit does not conform to the basic principles of our civil procedure law "a case of a v.". To sum up, the hospital in accordance with the "PRC Civil Procedure Law" article 108th (three), article 140th (three) the provisions of item, ruling as follows:

Dismissed the plaintiff prosecute Wang Min.

The case acceptance fee of thirty-five yuan (the plaintiff prepaid), returned to the plaintiff Wang Min.

Any party who refuses to accept the ruling, but within ten days after the receipt of the order book, to the hospital the petition and copy, appeal to the Beijing first intermediate people's court.