最高人民法院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
本期双语案例推送长春泰恒房屋开发有限公司与长春市规划和自然资源局国有土地使用权出让合同纠纷案等最高人民法院公报案例。
目录
Contents
1.长春泰恒房屋开发有限公司与长春市规划和自然资源局国有土地使用权出让合同纠纷案 Changchun Taiheng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Changchun Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources (case regarding dispute over a contract for assignment of the right to use state-owned land) 2.佛山市顺德区美的洗涤电器制造有限公司与佛山市云米电器科技有限公司等侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案 Midea Washing Electric Appliance Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Shunde District in Foshan City v. Foshan Yunmi Electric Appliance Technology Co., Ltd., et al. (case regarding dispute over infringement upon a utility-model patent) 3.周杰帅诉余姚绿城房地产有限公司商品房预售合同纠纷案 Zhou Jieshuai v. Yuyao Lvcheng Real Estate Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over contract for advance sales of commercial housing)
一、长春泰恒房屋开发有限公司与长春市规划和自然资源局国有土地使用权出让合同纠纷案
【裁判要旨】
一、因国家法律、法规及政策出台导致当事人签订的合同不能履行，以致一方当事人缔约目的不能实现，该方当事人请求法院判决解除合同的，人民法院应予支持；
二、鉴于双方当事人对于合同不能履行及一方当事人缔约目的不能实现均无过错，故可依据《中华人民共和国合同法》第九十七条的规定，仅判决返还已经支付的价款及相应孳息，对一方当事人请求对方当事人赔偿损失的请求不予支持；
三、对于一方当事人为履行合同而支付的契税损失，在双方当事人对于案涉合同的解除均无过错的情况下，可由双方当事人基于公平原则平均分担。
[Judgment Abstract]
First, where a contract cannot be performed due to laws, provisions and policies, rendering it impossible for any party to realize the purpose of the contract, a people's court should support the party's claim for rescission of the contract;
Second, whereas both parties are at fault for nonperformance of the contract and unrealization of the purpose of the contract, a people's court shall render a judgement in accordance with Article 97 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China that only the amounts received theretofore and the corresponding yield should be returned, and any claim for compensations from the other party should not be supported;
Third, where both parties are at no fault for the rescission of the contract involved in the case, they can equally share the loss on the deed tax paid by any party for the performance of the contract under the principles of equality.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2020年第6期（总第284期）第33-39页
Source: SPC Gazette, Issue 6, 2020
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.94505914
[CLI Code] CLI.C.94505914(EN)
二、佛山市顺德区美的洗涤电器制造有限公司与佛山市云米电器科技有限公司等侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案
Midea Washing Electric Appliance Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Shunde District in Foshan City v. Foshan Yunmi Electric Appliance Technology Co., Ltd., et al. (case regarding dispute over infringement upon a utility-model patent)
【裁判摘要】
侵害专利权纠纷案件中，被诉侵权人举证证明被诉侵权技术方案属于现有技术，由此主张其行为不构成侵犯专利权的，即构成现有技术抗辩。鉴于现有技术证据均早于专利申请日，为维护生效裁判既判力，规范诉讼程序，避免对专利权人造成诉讼突袭并架空第一、二审诉讼程序，引导当事人在第一、二审程序中充分抗辩、解决纠纷，对于被诉侵权人在再审审查程序中首次提出的现有技术抗辩理由和证据，不应予以审查。
[Judgment Abstract]
In a case regarding patent infringement dispute, if the alleged infringer provides evidence to prove that the alleged infringing technical solution falls under the existing technologies, and hence argues that his act does not constitute a patent infringement, such evidence should support the prior art defense. Whereas the evidence for existing technologies all exist prior to the date of patent application, the reasons and evidence for the prior art defense submitted by the alleged infringer in the process of retrial examination for the first time should not be reviewed in order to maintain the adjudicative force of the effective judgments, standardize the judicial procedures, avoid bringing to the patentee the proceeding surprise and defying the proceedings of first instance and second instance, guide the litigants to full contest in the proceedings of first instance and second instance, and eventually resolve the dispute.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2020年第5期（总第283期）第37-42页
Source: SPC Gazette, Issue 5, 2020
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.98409015
[CLI Code] CLI.C.98409015(EN)
三、周杰帅诉余姚绿城房地产有限公司商品房预售合同纠纷案
Zhou Jieshuai v. Yuyao Lvcheng Real Estate Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over contract for advance sales of commercial housing)
【裁判要旨】
当事人约定的违约金超过损失的百分之三十的，一般可以认定为合同法第一百一十四条第二款规定的“过分高于造成的损失”的规定，当事人主张约定的违约金过高请求予以适当减少的，人民法院应当以实际损失为基础，兼顾合同的约定、履行情况、当事人的过错程度以及预期利益等综合因素，根据公平原则和诚实信用原则进行考量，作出认定。
[Judgment Abstract]
Where the liquidated damages agreed upon by the parties exceed 30% of the losses, they may generally be deemed to be “significantly higher than the damages incurred” as set forth in Paragraph 2 of Article 114 of the Contract Law. If a party claims an appropriate reduction of the agreed-upon liquidated damages on the ground that the amount is significantly higher than the damages incurred, a people's court should, on the principles of fairness and integrity, make a decision in full consideration of the contractual agreements, performance of contract, seriousness of the party's faults, expected interests, and other comprehensive factors, as well as according to actual damages incurred as a result.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2019年第12期（总第278期）第28-35页
Source: SPC Gazette, Issue 12, 2019
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.93799761
[CLI Code] CLI.C.93799761(EN)
北京北大英华
科技有限公司
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
-END-
无因管理类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
质押合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
知识产权类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
租赁合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
技术合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
票据类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例商业秘密类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
涉港澳台案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例证券案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
涉外商事案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
物权案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例最高院公报案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
涉垄断类案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
点击相应图片识别二维码
获取更多信息
北大法宝
北大法律信息网
法宝学堂
法宝智能