一、基本案情

1999年5月20日，某货运公司与某建设分行签订最高额抵押借款合同一份，约定货运公司以其所有的2641m2的房屋以及12697m2的国有划拨土地使用权作为今后借款的抵押，并办理了相关抵押登记。2000年1月24日货运公司向该建设分行借款44万元。由于货运公司未按期归还，该建设分行向法院起诉。法院判决货运公司归还该建设分行借款44万元及逾期还款的利息。判决生效后，货运公司一直未能还款，该建设分行遂向法院申请执行。法院在执行过程中委托具有房地产价格评估机构资格的联信估价公司对上述抵押物进行了评估，确认上述抵押物在评估期日2003年6月9日的价值为72万元。2003年6月10日，法院便以72万元为底价，委托联合拍卖公司对上述抵押物进行拍卖。联合拍卖公司于2003年6月13日在《长兴报》刊登拍卖公告，公告刊登后，无人报名竞拍。法院便按评估价的80%将起拍价降至57.6万元，再次委托联合拍卖公司拍卖。联合拍卖公司再次刊登拍卖公告后，第三人雷某报名竞拍，并以起拍价57.6万元拍得上述房屋与土地使用权。雷某持法院的协助执行通知书于2003年10月29日办理了房屋产权过户手续，取得了房屋所有权证。同时在交付了土地出让金后，于2003年12月3日取得上述土地的国有出让土地使用权证。而货运公司则以评估价过低为由多次向法院提出异议，未获法院支持。货运公司遂于2004年11月10日以联信估价公司、联合拍卖公司为被告，以雷某为第三人诉至一审法院，请求判令：1、联信估价公司的评估报告无效；2、撤销联合拍卖公司与第三人雷某的拍卖协议；3、第三人雷某返还拍得的上述房屋与土地使用权。

二、裁判要旨

一审法院经审理认为, 本案中的评估与拍卖行为是发生在民事执行程序中，法院的行为不过是该建设分行向货运公司行使债权的一个法定救济途径，评估与拍卖过程中产生的相应民事权利和义务应由估价公司、拍卖公司承担，拍卖的法律后果则由货运公司和该建设分行承担，因此而发生的纠纷应作为民事案件受理。实体上，拍卖公司在接受执行法院的委托后，第一次以评估价作为起拍价进行拍卖，无人参与竞拍。经执行法院的同意，第二次以评估价的80%作为起拍价，并按公告的时间进行了拍卖，拍卖的起拍价数额确定符合拍卖中确定保留价数额的习惯要求，故联合拍卖公司的拍卖行为程序合法。第三人雷某以起拍价拍卖成交，拍定的标的物已由行政机关办理变更手续 [16]对特定人没有尽到合理的注意义务，也是违法的内容，参见应松年主编：《国家赔偿法研究》，法律出版社1995年版，第84页。

出处:《判解研究》2007年第2辑

1、 Basic facts of the case

On May 20, 1999, a freight company signed a maximum mortgage loan contract with a construction branch, agreeing that the freight company would use its 2641 square meters of housing and 12697 square meters of state-owned allocated land use rights as collateral for future loans, and had completed relevant mortgage registration. On January 24, 2000, the freight company borrowed 440000 yuan from the construction branch. Due to the freight company's failure to return on time, the construction branch filed a lawsuit with the court. The court ruled that the freight company should repay the construction branch's loan of 440000 yuan and interest on overdue repayment. After the judgment came into effect, the freight company has been unable to repay, and the construction branch has applied to the court for enforcement. During the execution process, the court entrusted Lianxin Appraisal Company with the qualification of a real estate price evaluation agency to evaluate the above-mentioned collateral and confirmed that the value of the aforementioned collateral as of June 9, 2003 was 720000 yuan. On June 10, 2003, the court entrusted a joint auction company to auction the aforementioned collateral at a base price of 720000 yuan. The joint auction company published an auction announcement in the Changxing Daily on June 13, 2003. After the announcement was published, no one registered for bidding. The court reduced the starting price to 576000 yuan at 80% of the assessed price and entrusted the joint auction company to auction again. After the joint auction company published another auction announcement, a third party, Lei, registered for bidding and obtained the aforementioned house and land use rights at a starting price of 576000 yuan. Lei completed the transfer of property rights and obtained the property ownership certificate on October 29, 2003, with the court's notice of assistance in execution. At the same time, after paying the land transfer fee, the state-owned land use certificate for the above-mentioned land was obtained on December 3, 2003. The freight company, on the other hand, repeatedly raised objections to the court on the grounds that the evaluation price was too low, but did not receive support from the court. On November 10, 2004, the freight company sued Lianxin Appraisal Company and Lianhe Auction Company as defendants and Lei as a third party to the first instance court, requesting a ruling: 1. The evaluation report of Lianxin Appraisal Company is invalid; 2. Revoke the auction agreement between the joint auction company and the third party Lei; 3. The third party, Lei, returned the aforementioned house and land use rights obtained from the auction.

2、 Key points of the referee

The first instance court held that the evaluation and auction behavior in this case occurred during the civil execution process, and the court's behavior was merely a legal remedy for the construction branch to exercise its creditor's rights against the freight company. The corresponding civil rights and obligations arising from the evaluation and auction process should be borne by the appraisal company and auction company, and the legal consequences of the auction should be borne by the freight company and the construction branch, Disputes arising from this should be accepted as civil cases. On the physical level, the auction company, after accepting the commission of the enforcement court, conducted the auction for the first time with the evaluation price as the starting price, and no one participated in the bidding. With the consent of the executing court, 80% of the evaluated price was used as the starting price for the second auction, and the auction was conducted according to the announced time. The determination of the starting price for the auction met the customary requirements for determining the amount of reserve price in the auction, so the auction procedure of the joint auction company is legal. The third party, Lei, auctioned the transaction at the starting bid price, and the subject matter of the auction has been changed by the administrative authority [16]. Failure to exercise reasonable care towards a specific person is also illegal. Please refer to Ying Songnian's research on the National Compensation Law, Law Press, 1995 edition, page 84.

Source: "Interpretation Research", Volume 2, 2007