The marriage house bought by a million dollars was actually a "hungry house". The court sentenced the buyer to check out and claim compensation
Civil Code Academy
Buying a real estate was originally a happy thing, but Lin Hong (a pseudonym), a girl born in the 90s, was not happy.
She pooled money from her parents and relatives to buy a house that was going to be used as a wedding house. There was a murder case. After learning the truth, Lin Hong and her family were like a bolt from the blue.
Lin Hongyi sued the seller Wang Mei (a pseudonym) to the court to ask for check-out and compensation for related losses.
A few days ago, after this case was heard by the Haizhu District People’s Court of Guangzhou City, it was decided to revoke the house purchase contract signed by both parties. The seller Wang Mei returned the purchase price of 390,000 yuan paid by the buyer Lin Hong and compensated for the losses.
Text/Guangzhou Daily All-Media Reporter Charter
Buyer: "If I know that there have been homicides in the house, I will never buy it"
Seller: I thought these things would not have a big impact, so I didn’t inform the buyer
According to Lin Hong’s complaint, at the end of October 2020, she learned from a friend that a high-rise building located in the south of Guangzhou Avenue in Haizhu District was on sale. She communicated with the owner Wang Mei via WeChat and phone, and agreed to go to the site to see it. room.
After on-site inspection of the house, Lin Hong and Wang Mei reached an intention to buy a house in mid-November 2020. The two parties signed the "Stock House Purchase Contract", which agreed that the total price of the house was 1.27 million yuan, the down payment was 390,000 yuan, and the mortgage payment was 880,000 yuan. .
On the day of signing the house purchase contract, Lin Hong paid Wang Mei a deposit of 100,000 yuan.
One month later, the two parties handled the transfer of the real estate. Lin Hong paid another 200,000 yuan down payment on the same day. The remaining down payment was 90,000 yuan the next day after the transfer.
But what Lin Hong never expected was that this house turned out to be a "murder house"!
At the end of December 2020, she inadvertently learned through online information that the house had been murdered one night in April 2013.
"I bought this house with money from my elderly parents, sisters and relatives. The next step is to be used as a wedding house. It is totally unacceptable to buy a'murder house'!" Lin Hong and his family who learned the truth seemed like a sunny day. thunderbolt.
In order to confirm this fact, Lin Hong hurried to visit the surroundings of the house. Both the agent and nearby residents stated that there had indeed been homicides in the house.
The intermediary said that for this reason, they would not take the guests to see it, so Wang Mei would not put it on the intermediary.
On the night when he learned the truth, Lin Hong asked Wang Mei to come out to communicate the matter in person.
Regarding this, Wang Mei admitted that there had indeed been homicides in the house, but because she believed that these incidents would not have a major impact, she did not inform Lin Hong.
Because the two parties negotiated inconsistencies in check-out and compensation matters, Lin Hong had to take Wang Mei to court. Lin Hong believed that this matter had caused a great psychological burden on her and her family, and seriously affected the work and life of their family. "We have always believed that The house is a normal house, and it is not clear that there have been homicides in the house. If you know it, you will never buy it! This is a major misunderstanding and a contract that seriously violates the real will. The owner knows that there have been homicides in the house. , But did not inform us that this violates the principle of good faith.” For this reason, Lin Hong asked the court to revoke the house purchase contract signed by both parties. Wang Mei returned the house purchase price of 390,000 yuan she had paid and compensated for the real estate registration fee she had paid. , Mortgage fees, taxes, etc. total more than 28,000 yuan.
In addition, he assisted in changing the property ownership registration back to Wang Mei's name, and Wang Mei was responsible for the litigation costs of the entire case.
Faced with Lin Hong’s complaint, Wang Mei did not agree to bear Lin Hong’s request for compensation of more than 28,000 yuan. She only collected 390,000 yuan. This part of the actual collection was agreed to be returned, but other expenses should be paid by Lin Hong. The litigation costs shall be borne by both parties.
The focus of the dispute: whether the original owner constituted fraud
Does the defendant Wang Mei constitute fraud?
This became the focus of controversy in this case.
The court held that to determine whether fraud constitutes fraud, the following factors should be considered: whether the case of life in the house involved is a major defect, whether the defendant has an obligation to disclose relevant information, and whether the plaintiff’s purchase of the house involved in the case violates his true intentions without disclosure.
On the one hand, the criminal facts of intentional homicide did occur in the house involved. The court found that the victim was killed and dissected at the time of the case, and the murderer was also sentenced to criminal punishment for the crime of intentional homicide.
Inferring from the common sense and common sense of social life, the occurrence of homicides has reached serious situations such as "cross death" in the perception of ordinary people.
Although the occurrence of abnormal deaths in the house did not objectively affect the actual use value of the house, the situation has affected the psychological feelings of the buyers and caused the reduction of the transaction value of the house, which is inconsistent with the true intention of the parties at the time of signing the contract and violates the purchase The expectation of the actual value of the house constitutes a major defect of the house, which is a major issue that affects the conclusion and performance of the sale and purchase contract.
At the same time, the parties should abide by the principle of good faith in exercising their rights and fulfilling their obligations.
When the defendant sells the house involved in the case, it is obliged to disclose information. It should truthfully inform the plaintiff of all the information related to the house sold, especially the major matters that can affect the conclusion and performance of the sale and purchase contract, so as to prompt the plaintiff to make a correct expression of intent.
Disclosure of major matters is the seller’s obligation and cannot be exempted because the buyer has not actively asked about it.
Furthermore, the plaintiff also stated in the grounds for the prosecution that if he knew that the house had been murdered, he would never buy it. This was a major misunderstanding and a serious breach of the true intention of the contract.
The plaintiff’s psychological cognition was in line with the general public’s perception and judgment of the "haunted house", and the court accepted that the plaintiff had entered into the contract in violation of its true meaning.
The court pointed out that in this case, the defendant should not only use his own subjective psychological feelings to determine that the housing case does not need to be cared about, but should disclose the occurrence of abnormal deaths based on the cognition of ordinary people.
The defendant failed to disclose the occurrence of abnormal deaths in the house involved, which violated the principle of good faith and constituted fraud.
●The occurrence of abnormal deaths in the house constitutes a major defect in the house, and is a major event that affects the conclusion and performance of the sale and purchase contract.
● Disclosure of major matters is the seller’s obligation and cannot be exempted because the buyer has not actively asked about it.
●The seller did not disclose the occurrence of abnormal deaths in the house involved, which violated the principle of good faith and constituted fraud.
Court decision:
Revocation of the purchase contract
For this reason, the court finally ruled to revoke the house purchase contract signed by both parties. The defendant Wang Mei returned the purchase price of 390,000 yuan, paid more than 28,000 yuan for real estate registration fees, mortgage service fees, taxes, etc., and went through the relevant procedures for property transfer and return to her name. .
In addition, the case acceptance fee was borne by the defendant Wang Mei.
Civil Code Classroom:
The defrauded party has the right to revoke
The principle of good faith is one of the basic criteria of the contract.
Our Civil Code clearly stipulates that "Civil entities engaged in civil activities shall follow the principle of good faith, uphold honesty, and abide by their promises."
The judge reminded that when exercising rights and fulfilling obligations, parties should be honest and trustworthy, abide by agreements, uphold fairness and justice, and conduct every transaction in good faith and sincerity.
Fraudulent behavior violates the principle of good faith and is not conducive to the establishment of a good faith society. All parties involved in civil activities consciously abide by good faith and abandon fraud.
Regarding the contract signed by fraud, the Civil Code of our country stipulates in the effect of civil juristic acts in Chapter VI Civil Judicial Acts under the General Provisions of Part One, that is, in accordance with Article 148, one party shall Fraud means that the other party commits a civil juristic act contrary to the true intentions, and the fraudulent party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to cancel it.