The real estate company remodeled the apartment without permission, causing the bathroom in the shared area to become someone else's place. Who should compensate the owner for the loss?

Recently, the Beijing Fangshan District People's Court concluded a contract dispute caused by the inconsistency between the actual structure of the house and the planning and design. The court ruled that the real estate company should compensate the owner for economic losses of 1,000 yuan.

At the same time, the relevant departments have ordered the developer to restore the original state according to the planning and design.

　　Ms. Liu claimed that in October 2016, she signed a house sales contract with a real estate company and purchased a commercial house with a total price of 536,400 yuan.

The floor plan of the house shows that there should be two separate bathrooms on the floor where the house is located.

But after the house inspection, Ms. Liu was surprised to find that the real estate company actually "gifted" the area of ​​one of the public toilets and some corridors to the owner of another house.

　　Ms. Liu believes that the house sold to her by the real estate company is not consistent with the planning and design drawings. loss.

Accordingly, the real estate company is required to return the house payment of 20,000 yuan, compensate 1,000 yuan for the loss of poor ventilation and inconvenient use due to the encroachment of the public area, and 2,000 yuan for the loss of property expenses caused by the real estate company's occupation of the public toilet.

　　The real estate company argued that the housing price is based on the area inside the suite, and Ms. Liu claimed to refund the house payment based on the shared area, which lacks factual and legal basis.

At the same time, the house where Ms. Liu lives has windows. Even if the public toilet is occupied by other apartment owners, it does not cause Ms. Liu poor ventilation or inconvenient use. There is still a bathroom in the middle of the floor where the house is located. The shared area The occupation did not cause actual losses to Ms. Liu.

Therefore, Ms. Liu's claim is not agreed.

　　The court noted that according to Ms. Liu’s application for information disclosure to the Beijing Municipal Planning and Land Resources Management Commission, the floor plan of the 4th to 18th floors of the building involved in the case shows that there is indeed a part of the public area between Ms. Liu’s house and the adjacent house. The public area is the women's toilet, and there is a short corridor at the door of the women's toilet.

During the trial, both parties agreed that the women's bathroom and the public corridor had been "incorporated" into the neighbor's home, and the real estate company also confirmed that the remodeling had been completed before the house was handed over.

　　Then, if the bathroom in the shared area of ​​the house is remodeled, does the owner have the right to claim compensation?

　　The court held that the two parties had clearly agreed in the house purchase contract on the building area, interior area and shared area of ​​the house involved.

According to the evidence, there should have been a public toilet and a walkway leading to the toilet between the house involved and the adjacent house, but the real estate company actually closed the public toilet and part of the adjacent walkway, and put the part As a part of the adjacent house, the closed space is handed over to the owner of the adjacent house for use.

Accordingly, the structural behavior of the real estate company changed the original design plan and was inconsistent with its publicity, so it should bear certain liability for breach of contract.

　　Considering that the real estate company’s occupation of public toilets and adjacent passages will indeed have a certain impact on the use of Ms. Liu’s house, the court supported Ms. Liu’s lawsuit demanding that the real estate company compensate for the loss of poor ventilation and inconvenient use due to the occupation of the public area. ask.

However, according to the performance of the house sales contract signed by both parties, it cannot be determined that Ms. Liu actually paid the corresponding house payment for this part of the area;

At present, the real estate company is gradually solving the problem.

Therefore, the court did not support Ms. Liu's request for the real estate company to return the house payment and compensate for the loss of property expenses.

　　In the end, the court ruled that the real estate company should compensate Ms. Liu for a loss of 1,000 yuan.

　　【Judge's statement】

　　The judge pointed out that according to the provisions of Article 509 of my country's "Civil Code", the parties should fully perform their obligations according to the agreement, and the performance of the contract should follow the principle of good faith.

In this case, the real estate company violated the stipulations in the house purchase contract on the shared area, and modified the house type privately, resulting in the inconsistency between the actual situation of the house and the design floor plan, which actually constituted a breach of contract.

　　The judge reminds here that the housing sales contract is a bilateral contract, and both parties should perform their obligations in accordance with the agreement.

As the owner, you should not only pay the purchase price on time, but also "keep your eyes open" during the process of signing the purchase contract and inspecting the house, and pay attention to whether there are public areas that have been remodeled and affect daily life; On the grounds that the personal area owned by the owner has not been affected, and the public area is arbitrarily remodeled, the actual structure of the house sold by it should be consistent with the planning and design.

　　(Beijing Youth Daily/Wang Zhumeng Beijing Fangshan Court)