Confirmation of shares dispute lawsuit fees

Recently, the agency a recognized in equity dispute, in case, for this kind of litigation fees, charges or subject to charges, the court fees are completely different, really make people confused a.

One, the legal basis

1, "means to pay the cost of litigation" (the State Council decree 481st)

Article thirteenth the fees for accepting the case in accordance with the following standards to pay:

(a)Property cases according to the claim of the amount or value, in accordance with the following scale piecewise cumulative pay:
1 no more than 10000 yuan, to pay 50 yuan each;
2 more than 10000 yuan to 100000 yuan part, in accordance with the 2.5% pay;
3 more than 100000 yuan to 200000 yuan part, in accordance with the 2% pay;
4 more than 200000 yuan to 500000 yuan part, in accordance with the 1.5% pay;
5 more than 500000 yuan to 1000000 yuan part, in accordance with the 1% pay;
6 more than 1000000 yuan to 2000000 yuan part, in accordance with the 0.9% pay;
7 more than 2000000 yuan to 5000000 yuan part, in accordance with the 0.8% pay;
8 more than 5000000 yuan to 10000000 yuan part, in accordance with the 0.7% pay;
9 more than 10000000 yuan to 20000000 yuan part, in accordance with the 0.6% pay;

The 10 part of more than 20000000 yuan, according to 0.5% pay.
(two) non property cases paid in accordance with the following criteria:
1 cases of divorce to pay 50 yuan to 300 yuan per piece. Involving the partitioning of property, the total value of the property is not more than 200000 yuan, without pay; more than 200000 yuan part, in accordance with the 0.5% pay.
2 name right infringement, name right, portrait right, reputation right, reputation right and other personality rights cases, to pay 100 yuan to 500 yuan per piece. Relating to the compensation for damage, the amount of compensation shall not exceed RMB 50000, without pay; more than 50000 yuan to 100000 yuan part, in accordance with the 1% pay; more than 100000 yuan part, in accordance with the 0.5% pay.
3 other non property cases to pay 50 yuan to 100 yuan per piece.

2, the Beijing Municipal Higher People's court opinions on the application of "means to pay the cost of litigation" (March 30, 2007)

Other non property cases each pay50Element.

3, "Notice of Beijing Municipal Development and Reform Commission on non property civil litigation fee standard "(Beijing Development and reform of No. [2007]1111) (June 26, 2007)
A,Non property of civil litigation fee standard

(three) other non property cases to pay 70 yuan each.

4, the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court issued "on file work is" means to pay the cost of litigation > notice "

11, property rights cases, confirmed the validity of the contract, the rescission of the contract case by case, one or the subject amount charged the fee for accepting the case?

Answer: the confirmation of property cases, in accordance with the subject matter of action value calculation of the fees for accepting the case.

To confirm the validity of the contract, the rescission of the contract, continue to perform the contract cases, no payment liability, according to charge the fees for accepting the case.

Two, recognized in equity dispute belongs to property cases or non property cases

Whether the case of property and non property on the basis of the civil case dispute subject has direct value property, can be divided into the case of property and non property cases. The case of property refers to the disputes between the parties rights and obligations has certain material content, or directly reflects certain economic interests cases. Non property cases refer to the relation of civil right and obligation does not have the property content directly, but with the controversial subject personality, identity can not be separated from the case. It is usually not directly reflect certain economic interests. China's press charges for non property cases shall be. Mainly include divorce cases, infringement of the right of the name, name right, portrait right, reputation right, reputation right case, infringement of a patent, copyright, trademark cases, and the labor dispute cases. In addition, according to the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the application of the civil procedure law issues opinions ", the supervising procedure cases, public summons case belongs to property case, but is different from the general property rights disputes, it is according to taxation."

So what is the key to ownership of property or personal right is the problem.

Neither the creditor's rights and equity, non property, but on the shareholder status and have included the property rights and management rights of various rights of assembly. Our jurisprudence explanation of equity is numerous, representative views are the following:

1, "property rights (ownership) said". The said represented by Professor Wang Liming, the basic idea that equity belongs to real right, in the company's property exist two ownership shareholder ownership and corporate ownership, the dual structure and refer to this phenomenon as the ownership. The dual structure of ownership does not undermine the "property rights law" a right. "The company enjoys the ownership of juridical person and not on shareholder ownership is negative, shareholder ownership is the right to return and part disposition, and is no longer complete ownership." And on that, "equity system extension property."

2, the "claims". The essence that ownership in civil law relationship between creditor, shareholder and the company is the relationship between the creditor and the debtor. In the early 1930's, China scholars have this to say, says "the company for business and the establishment of the profits of the company, shareholders enjoy benefits, then the position, and the position is." until the 1980's, scholar Guo Feng thinks that the "traditional shareholder has disappeared, the shareholders of shares subscribed by the conditions attached to the interests of the request is for the purpose of distribution. That is to say, the shareholder is a kind of creditor's rights of the company enjoys the property rights." and more people think that "equity not approximate claims it was."

3, "" the right of member". The said that shareholders arising from investments in corporations or join the corporation and become its members, and have the right within the group based on its membership, including the right of shareholders' and common benefit right, said that the shareholder enjoys the right of members as property rights exchange cost, "combined with the object as the membership right of property interests and does not have the property interests of the content in two kinds of interests, is the most important feature of the member right is different from other civil rights, it is not the right of shareholders as the main basis of real right or creditor's rights." 

4, "said comprehensive rights". Professor Liang Huixing think, "equity is a comprehensive right, not only have the right to vote of non property, also has the property of dividends and dissolution of the company to retrieve the residual property rights,...... Is a comprehensive right to membership rights as the foundation".

5 independent, "said". Professor Jiang Ping said that the "equity can only be a self-contained independent right type", Professor Shi Shaoxia that neither the ownership equity, not debt, is essentially a right of ownership and creditor's right side by side.

Therefore, equity should be an independent civil rights is property right has dual attributes of personal right. It is because it has the double attributes, also caused the court in the case are not unified in operation.

Three, the court practice

Case 1: equity between Jiang Weiming and Ruan Tong, Liu Furong confirmed that the dispute case　　

Beijing second intermediate people's court

Civil judgment
(2009) in China with the word no. 11570th
The appellant (defendant in the original instance): Jiang Weiming, male, was born in September 24, 1962, Han nationality, no industry, live in the city of Beijing Chaoyang District Jiuxianqiao ten Kaifong 14 Building 2 unit 30.
Attorney: Wang Hailan, lawyer of Beijing tao.
Appellee (the plaintiff) Ruan Tong, male, born in June 2, 1965, Han nationality, Beijing River Investment Limited company, Haidian District Yang Fang Dian Cun Beijing 15 Hospital No. 8 Building 251 room.
Agent Chang Ying, Beijing City Haiming lawyer.
Attorney: Li Dongxia, lawyer of Beijing city haiming.
Appellee (the plaintiff) Liu Furong, male, born in January 10, 1951, Han nationality, the Bank of Beijing Xinyuan branch retired worker, lives in Beijing city Chongwen District Red Temple Street No. 63.
Agent Chang Ying, Beijing City Haiming lawyer.
Attorney: Li Dongxia, lawyer of Beijing city haiming.
The appellant and appellee stake for Ruan Tong, Liu Furong confirmed that the dispute case against Jiang Weiming, Beijing Chaoyang District people's Court (2009) issued Spain in the early Republican word no. 11061st in civil judgment, and appealed to the hospital. The hospital in June 1, 2009 after acceptance, in accordance with the law is composed by judge Qian Lihong as the presiding judge, judge Sheng Han, Liu Bin participate in a collegial panel to hear. Now the trial has been closed.
Ruan Tong, Liu Furong first claimed: 1997, Ruan Tong, Liu Furong and Jiang Weiming are both Beijing bank employees, according to the Bank of Beijing's internal policy, each employee can subscribe for shares ten thousand shares. Because Jiang Weiming think subscription risks and the lack of funds, it decided to abandon the sale. Ruan Tong, Liu Furong after that, reach an agreement after negotiating with Jiang Weiming, Ruan Tong, Liu Furong, agreed to by the invested 5500 yuan, in the name of Jiang Weiming for the staff shares ten thousand shares, equity returns and other related rights enjoyed by Ruan Tong, Liu Furong. According to Ruan Tong, Jiang Weiming, Liu Furong issued by the guarantee, commitment to voluntarily give up ownership, its transfer to the Ruan Tong, Liu Furong, never back. So Ruan Tong, Liu Furong invested 5500 yuan, in the name of Jiang Weiming subscribed shares ten thousand shares. After the 1998 to 2005, Ruan Tong, Liu Furong each year to receive dividends. In 2007, the Bank of Beijing listed on the eve of the previous policy allows, in the name of others to subscribe for shares changed its name to the actual subscription name. Ruan Tong, Liu Furong and Jiang Weiming go through the alteration formalities in accordance with the contract requirements, Jiang Weiming initially agreed, then. The Ruan Tong, Liu Furong think it is Jiang Weiming's stake in the actual investor, over the years the rights of shareholders also by Ruan Tong, Liu Furong actually enjoy, Ruan Tong, Liu Furong is the real shareholder. Although Jiang Weiming called shareholder, but not the obligation of contribution, also not to exercise the rights of shareholders,The proper court for: 1, Jiang Weiming confirmed the name of Bank of Beijing as Ruan Tong, Liu Furong, Ruan Tong, Liu Furong each accounted for 50%; 2, Jiang Weiming court fees to be borne by the.
......

To sum up, according to "people's Republic of China Property Law" the thirty-third regulation, decision are as follows: first, Yu Jiang Wei Ming's name registration seven thousand six hundred and forty shares of Bank of Beijing shares of the Limited by Share Ltd to the Ruan Tong all; all seven thousand six hundred and forty-one shares of Bank of Beijing shares of the Limited by Share Ltd to Liu Furong two, registered in the name of the river Wei Ming.
Jiang Weiming refuses to accept the decision of the court of first instance, to appeal to the hospital, the main reason for appeal: first, the trial court does not buy shares of evidence in the Ruan Tong controversy, the Liu Furong case, assume the actual investor is Ruan Tong, Liu Furong, that the error. The court of first instance only by the Bank of Beijing in 1997 to 2006 employees bonus table at the overthrow of Jiang Weiming share certificate, a serious error. Jiang Weiming in 2007 for equity card has been legally receive dividends. Two, the court of first instance on the basis of Ruan Tong, Liu Furong illegal recording data as the basis for a final decision is wrong. Jiang Weiming was no more than have a fever, mind is not clear, the evidence is not legitimate, not real, not as a final basis. To sum up, Jiang Weiming asked the trial court to rescind the original judgment, Ruan Tong, rejected Liu Furong's claim.
......

To sum up, Jiang Weiming's appeal claims can not be established, the court shall not support. The court of First Instance judgement is not inappropriate, the court shall sustain. In accordance with the "PRC Civil Procedure Law" article 153rd (a) the provisions of item, the decision as follows:
Dismiss the appeal, upheld the.
A trial of the seventy yuan of case acceptance fee burden, by Jiang Weiming (in the entry into force of this decision within seven days after delivery to the court of first instance).
The second case acceptance fee of $seventy, by Jiang Weiming burden (paid).
This judgment is the final judgment.
Chief justice Qian Lihong
Judge Sheng Han
Acting judge Liu Bin
Two thousand and nine years in July 3rd
The clerk Wang Xuan
Case two:
For Asset Management Limited and China China Business Development Corporation recognized in equity dispute case

Beijing second intermediate people's court

The appellant (defendant in the original instance) for Asset Management Limited, the domicile in Beijing city Chaoyang District Huizhong Lane No. 219.

Legal Representative Joe guards, chairman of the board.

Attorney: Zhang Jinbo, male, Han nationality, born in September 6, 1978, the asset management company in Shandong Province, Qingzhou fan'gongting No. 318 South street.

Appellee (the plaintiff) Chinese China Business Development Corporation, Chaoyang District Jintai Road Beijing City domicile No. 2.

Legal representative: Hou Laiwang, general manager of.

Attorney: Du Jinchuan, lawyer of Tianjin Tianjin water.

Attorney: Zhang Yongqiang, lawyer of Tianjin Tianjin water.

The appellant for Asset Management Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) with the appellee Chinese China Business Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Huawen company) recognized in equity dispute case, the Beijing Chaoyang District people's Court (2009) toward the issued Spain in the early Republican word no. 32860th civil judgment, and appealed to the hospital. The hospital in February 3, 2010 after acceptance, in accordance with the law is composed by judge Qian Lihong as the presiding judge, judge Li Li, Shi Dong in a collegial panel, convened in March 10, 2010 both parties were asked. Now the trial has been closed.

Huawen company claims in the first instance: in 1997 June, China company and PICC Property Insurance Company Limited Guangxi Branch Co sponsored the establishment of "success (Nanning) investment Limited by Share Ltd" (hereinafter referred to as the company), the company's total of 85948500 shares, the shares subscribed by promoters, as of 6000000 yuan (Huawen company the actual investment 6000000 yuan); the Ministry of finance of the people's Republic of China in February 12, 2001, the state-owned assets of the property right registration, confirm the Huawen company enjoys the Guanglian company shares to 6000000 shares; in October 22, 2003 as a result of rectification work needs, Huawen company will hold 6000000 stake in a company commissioned by the company management and hold. In September 13, 2007, Ministry of social development of superior departments in charge of people's daily Huawen company sent a letter to the company, the decision will be made by the company on behalf of the company 6000000 shares - back. In November 23, 2007, the company said in reply to obey the arrangement, to handle the relevant formalities. So far, the company did not handle the relevant formalities will be a company 6000000 shares return Huawen company.So the Huawen company to court, requesting an order confirmation for the company name a company 6000000 shares return Huawen company, ordered for companies with Huawen company related to equity change procedures, and the Delta company take the case of litigation costs.

......

In conclusion, decision based on "general rule of the civil law" article fourth, the Supreme People's court "several regulations about the civil action evidence" of second, sixty-sixth, seventy-second the provisions of the first paragraph,: A, confirmation for Asset Management Limited held wide couplet (Nanning) investment Limited by Share Ltd six million shares of Chinese Huawen career development general company. Two, the asset management company with China China Business Development Corporation for the corresponding procedures for alteration of equity.

......

In accordance with the "PRC Civil Procedure Law" article 153rd (a) the provisions of item, the decision as follows:

Dismiss the appeal, upheld the.

Fee forty-eight thousand four hundred and ninety-three yuan accepted the case in the first instance, by the Asset Management Limited burden (in the entry into force of this decision within seven days after delivery to the court of first instance).

The second case acceptance fee of ninety-six thousand nine hundred and eighty-six yuan, up by Asset Management Limited burden (paid).

This judgment is the final judgment.

 Chief justice Qian Lihong

 Acting Judge LiLi

 Acting judge stoneEast

Two March 18th 2010

Secretary WangJing

Four, not a conclusion

The above two cases are all Chaoyang District people's Court of first instance, the Beijing second intermediate people's Court of second instance, belong to the confirmation of shares disputes, but in charge of litigation costs there is a world of difference. Carefully will find that there are differences in litigation request, before a piece for litigation request only to confirm the ownership, not the amount; a according to the standard charge litigation request in the equity value and the requirements for equity change procedures. The difference here is.

But according to the agent in this case that is not really the case, do some courts in operation to see whether there is action property benefit contents, while some court according to the provisions of standard fees, to force the parties to clear the value of equity in litigation request. (if it can be charged on each piece, from the litigation risk perspective, can be predicted that all parties would choose not to require property benefit contents, first asked to confirm the ownership.) The parties in the paid large costs will naturally add requirements for equity alternation property payment request, in order to protect their own rights and interests.

In short, this is not a conclusion, the court for confirmation according to the litigation fees charged operating inconsistencies in equity, relevant departments should be introduced as soon as possible to achieve equity regulations and policies, to confirm consistency litigation fees, in order to protect the litigation rights of the parties.