Case Introduction

      Mr. Zhang and Mr. Li signed a Beijing Stock Housing Sales Contract, which stipulated that Mr. Li would sell his property located in Haidian District to Mr. Zhang for a total price of 6.5 million yuan. Both parties have agreed on the time for the delivery of the house and the transfer of ownership registration procedures. At the same time, the contract stipulates that the Seller shall, within 15 days of the transfer of the ownership of the house, go through the formalities of moving out the original registered residence registration with the registered residence administration authority where the house is located. If the Seller fails to move out the registered residence related to the house on schedule due to its own reasons, it shall pay the Buyer a penalty of 5% of the total price of the house; If the overdue period exceeds 15 days and the seller fails to move out, the seller shall pay a penalty of 0.05% of the total amount paid to the buyer on a daily basis starting from the overdue period of more than 15 days. The dispute resolution clause of the contract does not specify the court of jurisdiction.

       After the contract was signed, Mr. Zhang fulfilled the contract as agreed, paid the house price, and Mr. Li also delivered the house to Mr. Zhang and completed the ownership transfer registration procedures. Mr. Zhang obtained the ownership certificate of the house. However, when Mr. Zhang went through the formalities of registered residence transfer, he learned that Mr. Li, in addition to his family members, had settled the registered residence of Mr. Zhu, an outsider, in the house, and Mr. Li had not moved out of the registered residence. Mr. Zhang repeatedly asked Mr. Li to move out the registered residence of the outsider, but Mr. Li refused. Mr. Zhang wants to file a lawsuit to continue to perform the contract, remove the registered residence registration on the house and pay its liquidated damages. So, does the court where the house is located have jurisdiction? How does the jurisdictional court determine?

Court Trial

       In this case, the "Beijing Stock Housing Sales Contract" signed by Mr. Zhang and Mr. Li did not specify a clear and effective jurisdiction court. Therefore, the legal jurisdiction principle of contract disputes is applicable, which is to be governed by the court of the defendant's domicile or the place of contract performance. Regarding the determination of the place of performance of the contract in this case, the sales contract for commercial housing stipulates that the seller shall vacate the household registration of the house within a certain period of time, otherwise they shall bear the liability for breach of contract. Litigation arising solely from the obligation to relocate households shall not be subject to the territorial jurisdiction determined by Article 18 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, which states that "if immovable property is delivered, the place where the immovable property is located shall be the place of contract performance". The obligation to relocate households belongs to other subjects stipulated in Article 18 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law. Any lawsuit arising from the obligation to relocate households shall be determined by the jurisdiction court based on the location of the party performing the obligation. The location of the party fulfilling the obligations in this case is the residence of Mr. Li. Therefore, the court where the house is located in this case has no jurisdiction, and Mr. Zhang should file a lawsuit with the court where Mr. Li resides.

Judicial interpretation

        Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that a lawsuit arising from a contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the defendant's domicile or the place of contract performance. Article 18, Paragraph 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law) stipulates that if there is no agreement or unclear agreement on the place of performance in the contract, and the disputed subject matter is the payment currency, the place where the receiving currency is located shall be the place of performance of the contract; If delivering immovable property, the location of the immovable property shall be the place of contract performance; The location of the party performing the obligation for other subjects is the place of contract performance.

       This article is transferred from the WeChat official account of "Beijing Xicheng Court", and thanks.