The villa was suddenly sealed up and the auction owner was stunned to find someone to hold a house to hold a house to hold a house to hold a house.

■ Villa involved in the case.

There is no trivial matter when buying a house. Due to the qualifications and prices of house purchase, some consumers choose to find others to buy a house by "holding". However, at the legal level, the risk of holding a house on behalf of the house is very high, and there will be disputes if you care about it. In this issue, Yang's real lawsuit was approved by the officials.

Many years ago, Yang had borrowed his driver Xu Mou, and bought a villa and a Mercedes -Benz car in Panyu, Guangzhou. Since the closing of the building, Yang and his family have been living in the villa. However, Xu was later sued by bangs (a pseudonym) for borrowing disputes. In Xu, the villa and Mercedes -Benz, which Yang, also used by Yang, will also face auction.

What is even more surprising is that Yang learned about it until the villa he lived. The property he purchased was suddenly auctioned by the court, and Yang was really confused.

■ New Express reporter Gao Jing

Buy villas by name

Yang's work is very busy, and often runs at home and abroad. In order to better carry out his work, he hired Xu as an assistant and driver in March 2009.

Just one month after the two people cooperated, Xu borrowed 650,000 yuan from Yang. The money was originally used by Yang for buying a house, but at the time he didn't think too much and lent directly to Xu.

On the agreed repayment day, Xu did not repay, but at this time Yang wanted to buy a house, but because of insufficient funds, he signed an agreement to buy a house with Xu, agreed to buy in the name of Xu in Panyu to buy in Panyu in Panyu. A 3 -storey villa. The "Agreement" stipulates that Yang enjoys the right to possess, use, earn, and punishment of the house. Xu may not punish the house without any written consent of Yang.

Yang's house purchase was carried out in a loan. Since September 2009, Yang has paid loans to repayment accounts by cash deposits or transfer every year. Although Xu left soon, Yang still repaid the loan at time.

In January 2011, Yang's villa was officially closed, and the family moved into the villa happily. In November of that year, Yang set up a town of a town at the door of the villa to commemorate his father and engraved his name on it. To this day, the down payment, monthly supply, decoration costs, special maintenance funds, property costs, and hydropower costs of villas are also actually paid by Yang.

Villa being seized

After Xu's departure, in response to Xu's debt, he issued a civil judgment on October 11, 2011 Baiyun District People's Court, asking Xu and his friend Lan to borrow and interest of 650,000 yuan in principal. Responsible for the liability for settlement. However, after the verdict, Yang did not receive Xu's repayment. Instead, in November 2014, a court executed auction document was posted on the door of his villa.

After understanding, Yang, who was confused, knew that Xu was sued for arrears. His villa has been applied to the third -party creditors Liu Hai in the name of Xu, and the case has entered the implementation auction procedure.

Xu borrowed 3 million yuan from Liu Hai on September 24, 2012. The two signed the "Loan Contract" on the same day, agreed that Xu's loan amount, repayment date and borrowing interest and liquidated damages. However, according to Liu Hai, Xu had no news after the expiration of the loan contract and did not fulfill any repayment obligation. In 2013, Liu Hai brought Xu to court, demanding that the loan of 3 million yuan was required, and the overdue repayment interest was 1.08 million yuan, and the default damage was 360,000 yuan.

After the trial of the Guangzhou Baiyun Court in Guangzhou, the two parties had no objection to the borrowing behavior, and made a judgment on January 26, 2014: Xu replied 3 million yuan to the borrowing principal from bangs, paid 715,000 yuan and overdue repayment repayment. Interest, Li Mou, who borrowed money at the time, bears liability for liability.

However, Xu has not fulfilled the obligation to repay. Liu Hai applied for the court for compulsory execution two months later. The Baiyun Court filed a case and implemented the target amount of more than 4.1 million yuan. Essence

As the actual owner of the villa, Yang filed a complaint to the Baiyun Court as soon as possible. Yang said that he was the owner of the villa involved in the case. Xu was just a nominal owner, and the villa has not yet handled the formal property rights registration.

At the same time, Yang also submitted a judicial appraisal to the court of first instance, saying that the agreement was indeed signed in 2009 in 2009, far before Xu borrowed from Liu Hai. Therefore, Yang believes that Xu's personal loan has nothing to do with his property and vehicles.

In the case of the objections, Xu admitted that he had signed an agreement with Yang during the first instance. The house and vehicle involved were purchased and used by Yang.

But at this time, the bangs of third -party creditors put forward their own views. He believes that the relationship between Yang and Xu and Xu is not legitimacy and rationality. There are people who have a common violation of third -party claims. Liu Hai also questioned the judicial appraisal made by the Acting agreement, and believed that the court could not determine the ownership of the above property based on the statement between Yang and Xu.

There are suspected fraud outside the case

The Baiyun Court believes that the down payment and monthly loan involved in the case are Yang's capital contributing to Xu's account, or directly to the repayment account. In addition, the content of the "Agreement" can also be confirmed that Yang and Xu have clearly agreed on the ownership of the property involved in the case. The agreed time is in line with the time of buying a house, and the authenticity is confirmed by judicial appraisal. To this end, the Baiyun Court made a first -instance judgment on May 23, 2017. The ownership of the house and vehicle ownership of the above -mentioned case was Yang, and Xu Mou's private loan dispute was not allowed to perform the above -mentioned property and vehicle.

During the second trial, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the house and vehicle involved in the first trial were purchased by Yang by the name of Xu, which was in line with objective reality. However, the "Agreement" signed by Yang and Xu is only an internal agreement between the two parties. When the two parties did not transfer the ownership of the house and vehicle to Yang's name, they did not produce the legal consequences of biological rights. Legal consequences of fighting a third party. Therefore, Yang cannot obstruct the implementation of the houses and vehicles involved in this request.

At the same time, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court believes that Yang is to buy a house for the convenience of loans. It belongs to the registration of the house involved in the case and the house involved in the case. And assume.

To this end, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court made a second trial judgment on September 19, 2018. The judgment clearly wrote that the first trial was determined that the facts were clear. Only the case handling was not proper and corrected.

On August 7, 2019, the Guangdong Provincial High Court issued the "Answers on Several Key Issues on Cases of Examination and Execution Execution Class Disputes". Implementing forced enforcement, the outsider advocates that it has a household -name relationship with the person who is executed, and can provide evidence to prove that outsiders of outsiders are actual property owners. If they do not harm national interests and social public interests, they can exclude execution.

In order to safeguard his legitimate rights and interests, for the borrowing dispute between Liu Hai and Xu, Yang submitted a retrial application to the Baiyun Court in 2020 as a foreign person who was damaged by rights and interests, requesting to cancel the civil judgment made by the Baiyun Court in accordance with the law. Rejected all the litigation requests that rejected Liu Hai.

Yang said that the court of the original trial of the case did not conduct a reasonable review of the case involved in the case and the economic ability of the parties, and found that there were major errors in the basic facts of the case. Risk of execution. The original judgment seriously damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant and should be revoked through the sequence of the retrial. In addition, Yang's criminal investigation of Xu's suspected fraud case learned that the so -called "loan" between Xu and Liu Hai actually finally returned to the account involved in the case of the bangs. Essence

On June 25, 2021, the Baiyun Court issued a civil ruling, stating that the plaintiff Liu Hai and the defendant Xu and Li Mou's civil loan disputes in the original trial, and the civil judgment made by the Baiyun Court on January 26, 2014 has occurred in law. Play. The dean of the Court submitted the trial committee for discussion that the verdict was indeed wrong and should be retrial. Then the case would form another reconciliation court for retrial, and the implementation of the original judgment was suspended during the retrial period.

The retrial of the case is still being tried.

Lawyer

Acting Agreement does not have the legal effect of property rights

Lawyer Lai Lai, a law firm of Guangdong Legal Shengbang Law Firm, believes that if consumers buy a house by others, from a legal perspective, they only recognize the actual property owner of the house and have property rights. Even if there is no formal real estate certificate, the purchase contract and the names of the acting person in the pre -sale certificate have legal effect.

On the contrary, the agreement signed by the actual investment of the house buyers and the agent does not have the effectiveness of property rights. If the person holding the person who mortgage and sell the house privately, it will directly harm the interests of the actual owner of the house. Of course, if the debt disputes on behalf of the holder are false situations, that is, forging debts to make a profit, and the actual owner of the house requires strong evidence of providing certification of false transportation.

Lawyer Lai suggested that you should not choose to hold a house to buy a house for a while, and if you care about it, you will cause potential legal risks and hidden dangers.

- END -