最高人民法院关于依法平等保护非公有制经济，促进非公有制经济健康发展民事商事典型案例

目录

1.梁昌运与霍邱县人民政府国土资源局建设用地使用权出让合同纠纷案

2.青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司与青海省气象局财产损害赔偿纠纷案

3.重庆融豪投资（集团）有限公司与泸州市江阳区人民政府等合同纠纷案

4.佛山市百业房地产开发有限公司破产重整案

5.锦州市自来水总公司与锦州市古塔区古塔宾馆供用水合同纠纷案

6.邯郸市金城机电物资有限公司与磁县教育局买卖合同纠纷案

7.沈阳重型冶矿机械制造公司四厂与沈阳北重冶矿电站设备研制有限公司等股东出资纠纷案

8.中静实业（集团）有限公司与上海电力实业有限公司、中国水利电力物资有限公司、上海新能源环保工程有限公司、上海联合产权交易所股权转让纠纷案

9．上海中邦机有限公司与上海第三机床厂、上海三机液压成套有限公司买卖合同纠纷案

10.海门市海永农机经营部与中国石油天然气股份有限公司上海销售分公司租赁合同纠纷案

一、梁昌运与霍邱县人民政府国土资源局建设用地使用权出让合同纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2014年，梁昌运通过招投标竞得霍国土出［2011］82号国有建设用地使用权，与霍邱县人民政府国土资源局签订的《国有建设用地使用权挂牌成交确认书》《国有建设用地使用权出让合同》约定：霍邱县人民政府国土资源局在2014年9月17日前将出让宗地交付给梁昌运，用地使用权出让金为5953350元，定金为400万元，定金抵作土地出让价款，自合同签订之日起60日内一次性付清。合同约定出让人未按时提供出让土地超过60日，经催交后仍不能交付土地的，受让人有权解除合同，出让人应当双倍返还定金，并退还已经支付国有建设用地使用权出让价款的其余部分，受让人并可请求出让人赔偿损失。合同签订后，梁昌运交纳定金400万元，并交清余下1953350元，但霍邱县人民政府国土资源局未依约交付土地。梁昌运提起诉讼，请求人民法院判决霍邱县人民政府国土资源局双倍返还定金800万元、退还已支付土地出让金1953350元，赔偿损失100万元。

（二）裁判结果

安徽省六安市中级人民法院一审认为,本案《建设用地使用权出让合同》合法有效。梁昌运依照合同约定的期限交清了全部土地出让金，霍邱县人民政府国土资源局未在合同约定的期限内交付适合开发的建设用地已构成违约，依法应当承担违约责任。根据合同约定，梁昌运有权解除合同，要求霍邱县人民政府国土资源局双倍返还定金、返还已交付的土地出让金，并承担赔偿责任。但本案合同约定的定金数额明显过高，依法应当调整。梁昌运主张的损失无充分证据证实，其虽确实存在运营及融资成本，但考虑双倍返还定金的数额并未过份高于或低于其实际损失，故对其要求另行支付利息及赔偿损失的诉讼请求依法不予支持。判决：一、解除梁昌运与霍邱县人民政府国土资源局签订的《国有建设用地使用权出让合同》；二、霍邱县人民政府国土资源局双倍返还梁昌运定金238.134万元；三、霍邱县人民政府国土资源局返还梁昌运已交纳的土地出让金476.268万元；三、驳回梁昌运的其他诉讼请求。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案是关于违反国有土地使用权出让合同约定应当承担相应违约责任的典型性案例。实践中，在国有土地使用权出让过程中，由于一些地方政府的不规范行为，造成与非公有制企业签订国有土地使用权出让合同后，不能按约交付土地，侵害了非公有制经济主体的合法权益。在此情况下，依法维护非公有制经济主体的合同权益，是对其民事权利平等保护原则的重要体现。本案中，霍邱县人民政府国土资源局通过公开招投标程序与梁昌运签订了土地使用权出让合同，梁昌运也按照合同约定交纳了土地出让金，但霍邱县人民政府国土资源局没有依约交付土地构成违约，梁昌运根据合同约定要求解除合同、返还土地出让金、双倍返还定金等合理请求，均得到了人民法院的支持。人民法院审理该案件时，平等对待政府机关和非公有制经济主体，准确适用《合同法》相关规定，依法支持梁昌运的相关诉讼请求，妥善维护了非公有制经济的合法权益。

二、青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司与青海省气象局财产损害赔偿纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2011年5月，民营企业青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司办理相关手续后建设开发位于青海省西宁市某商住小区项目。后青海省气象局将正在施工使用的唯一通道堵塞，造成无法施工。经诉讼及强制执行，该通道被疏通，共造成停工112天。青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司起诉要求青海气象局支付停工产生的违约金损失、人员工资损失、监理费报酬损失、借款利息及罚息损失等各项损失合计4358404.81元。

（二）裁判结果

青海省西宁市中级人民法院一审认为，根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第八十三条关于“不动产的相邻各方，应当按照有利生产、方便生活、团结互助、公平合理的精神，正确处理截水、排水、通行、通风、采光等方面的相邻关系。给相邻方造成妨碍或者损失的，应当停止侵害，排除妨碍，赔偿损失”及《最高人民法院关于贯彻执行<中华人民共和国民法通则>若干问题的意见（试行）》第一百条关于“一方必须在相邻一方使用的土地上通行的，应当予以准许；因此造成损失的，应当给予适当补偿”的规定，青海省气象局理应向青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司承担因侵权造成的财产损害赔偿责任。判决：青海省气象局赔偿青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司各项经济损失1055240元；驳回青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司的其他诉讼请求。

青海省气象局、青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司上诉后，青海省高级人民法院作出二审判决：驳回上诉,维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是因相邻关系造成妨碍应当承担民事责任的典型性案例。实践中存在非公有制企业和政府机关、国有企业等因相邻关系等非合同关系引发的民事纠纷，在此类纠纷中，同样需要依照法律规定，对非公有制企业的合法权益予以保护，而不能允许其他主体对其合法权益肆意侵害而不承担相应法律责任。本案中，青海省气象局堵塞青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司开发建设青海省气象局旧房改造项目正在施工的唯一通道构成侵权的事实，已由另案生效法律文书所确认，对于此侵权行为造成的青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司的财产损失，青海省气象局应当予以赔偿。因此，青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司的诉讼请求，在有证据支持的范围内，得到了人民法院的支持。人民法院审理该案件时，平等对待双方当事人，准确适用《民法通则》及其司法解释等相关规定，依法支持青海茂祥房地产开发有限公司的相应诉讼请求，维护了其作为非公有制企业的合法权益。

三、重庆融豪投资（集团）有限公司与泸州市江阳区人民政府等合同纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2008年，泸州市江阳区人民政府（以下简称区政府）通过公开招商，与民营企业重庆融豪投资（集团）有限公司（以下简称融豪投资公司）订立一系列土地整理项目投资协议，约定由融豪投资公司投资3.2亿元对该区两块土地实施土地整理。协议订立后，融豪投资公司陆续投入1亿余元资金用于该项目。2014年，区政府向融豪投资公司发函称，以上协议违反国务院办公厅《关于规范国有土地使用权出让收支管理的通知》和四川省国土资源厅、省财政厅、省监察厅、省审计厅联合下发的《关于进一步加强国有土地使用权出让收支管理的通知》文件精神，要求终止履行以上协议。融豪投资公司诉至法院，请求确认区政府终止履行协议的函无效，并要求区政府继续履行协议。

（二）裁判结果

重庆市高级人民法院一审认为：区政府解除行为是否产生效力应当依据《中华人民共和国合同法》第九十四条的规定进行审查。该条规定：“有下列情形之一的，当事人可以解除合同：（一）因不可抗力致使不能实现合同目的；（二）在履行期限届满之前，当事人一方明确表示或者以自己的行为表明不履行主要债务；（三）当事人一方迟延履行主要债务，经催告后在合理期限内仍未履行；（四）当事人一方迟延履行债务或者有其他违约行为致使不能实现合同目的；（五）法律规定的其他情形。”本案中,区政府所提及两份文件并非法律、行政法规，且未对本案所涉协议明令禁止，区政府以政策变化为由要求解除相关协议的理由不能成立，其发出的终止履行协议的函不产生解除合同的效力。判决：确认解除协议的函无效，区政府继续履行与融豪投资公司签订的相关协议。一审判决后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案是规范政府机关擅自解除民商事合同行为的典型案例。实践中，个别地方政府与非公有制企业签订民商事合同后，以各种借口否认合同效力，达到不履行合同的目的，影响正常市场交易秩序，侵害了非公有制企业的合法权益，应予规范。本案中，区政府通过公开招商程序与融豪投资公司订立投资协议，但在融豪投资公司做了大量投入后，却以投资协议违反有关文件为由要求终止协议的履行，有违诚信。法院审理该案时，平等对待融豪投资公司与区政府，准确适用《合同法》关于合同解除的相关规定，依法支持融豪投资公司要求继续履行协议的请求，有效地维护了非公有制企业的合法权益。

四、佛山市百业房地产开发有限公司破产重整案

（一）基本案情

广东一百铜业有限公司、广东一百门窗幕墙有限公司、广东一百投资有限公司、佛山市百业房地产开发有限公司（下称百业公司）、广东一百房地产发展有限公司、广东银一百创新铝业有限公司，为民营企业一百集团旗下六家关联公司。六家公司于2015年1月12日以不能清偿到期债务为由，向法院提交破产重整申请。经调查：百业公司自身债务不大，但与另外五家公司互联互保，对外担保债务竟达8亿多元；以上六家公司现金链断裂，无法维持正常生产及经营，无法支付货款、银行到期贷款本息，明显丧失清偿能力；部分供货商及银行起诉六家公司并查封部分资产；若债权人通过诉讼、执行六家公司或直接申请六家公司破产清算，将导致近1300名员工失业，严重影响社会稳定；六家公司资产优质，存在通过破产重整盘活资产、恢复生产经营的可能。

(二)裁判结果

2015年1月20日，广东省佛山市中级人民法院依法召集22家银行金融机构及供货商代表，听取对六家公司申请破产重整的意见。2月5日，法院依法组织持异议的五家银行及六家公司的前三大债权人举行听证会，对部分银行提出的异议再次听证，征询其对六家公司破产重整的意见。3月16日，法院对破产原因及重整可能性进行审查后，根据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第七十一条关于“人民法院经审查认为重整申请符合本法规定的，应当裁定债务人重整，并予以公告”之规定，裁定受理百业公司等六家公司的重整申请，并指定管理人接管百业公司。6月15日，管理人召开第二次债权人会议，各表决组均通过以新投资人注入资金的方式清偿债务的重整计划（草案）。同日，法院根据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第八十六条关于“各表决组均通过重整计划草案时，重整计划即为通过。自重整计划通过之日起十日内，债务人或者管理人应当向人民法院提出批准重整计划的申请。人民法院经审查认为符合本法规定的，应当自收到申请之日起三十日内裁定批准，终止重整程序，并予以公告”之规定，作出民事裁定，批准重整计划并终止百业公司重整程序。自此，百业公司进入重整计划执行阶段。

(三)典型意义

本案是人民法院运用破产重整制度帮助困难民营企业走出困境的典型案例。百业公司等六家关联企业申请破产。人民法院受理破产申请后，现场走访六家公司，调查生产及经营现状，并听取了主要债权人及供货商代表关于六家公司破产重整的意见。经调查，人民法院发现，六家公司资产优质，若通过破产重整盘活资产、恢复生产经营，有利于提高债权人尤其是供货商等普通债权人的受偿率，稳定数百名供货商情绪，近1300名员工也不会面临失业的风险，当地社会和谐稳定将得到有效维护。而且，绝大多数债权人均希望六家债务人重整，当时部分项目已有投资者愿意接手，但均表示应在重整程序启动后进行。基于以上事实，人民法院根据六家公司的破产申请，将六家公司合并破产，并通过破产重整拯救了百业公司，实现了债权人、债务人以及其他利益主体多赢的局面。

当前，我国正处于经济增速换挡、结构调整阵痛、动能转换困难相互交织的时期，经济下行压力加大，许多非公有制企业因资金链断裂而资不抵债。正确审理企业破产案件，防范和化解企业债务风险，特别是充分发挥破产重整程序的特殊功能，盘活优质企业的资产，使其恢复生产经营，对于挽救危困的非公有制企业，帮助和支持符合国家产业政策的非公有制企业恢复生机、重返市场，具有重要意义。

五、锦州市自来水总公司与锦州市古塔区古塔宾馆供用水合同纠纷

（一）基本案情

锦州市自来水总公司（以下简称自来水公司）与民营企业锦州市古塔区古塔宾馆（以下简称古塔宾馆）之间存在供用水合同。2012年7月份之前，古塔宾馆均按照合同约定及相关规定交纳了水费。2012年7月初，自来水公司工作人员告知古塔宾馆该月水费1万多元，古塔宾馆对此提出异议，未予交纳。7月17日，自来水公司给古塔宾馆出具了该月用水量120吨、水费720元的发票，要求古塔宾馆交纳，古塔宾馆未交纳。7月24日，自来水公司为古塔宾馆更换了水表，古塔宾馆法定代表人、自来水公司工作人员在会签单上签字。8月8日、9月6日，自来水公司两次向古塔宾馆送达停水通知书，限古塔宾馆分别于8月10日上午9时前补交拖欠水费11904元、9月10日上午9时前补交拖欠水费12624元，逾期不交将按有关规定实施停水处理，其后果自负。古塔宾馆因对该水费存在异议，与自来水公司交涉未果，故仍未交纳。9月3日，自来水公司向该市公用事业与房产局申请停止向古塔宾馆供水，该局批示“同意按有关规定处理”。9月11日，自来水公司停止向古塔宾馆供水。古塔宾馆提起诉讼，要求自来水公司恢复供水。

（二）裁判结果

辽宁省锦州市古塔区人民法院一审认为：自来水公司作为供水单位，应当按照合同约定和法律规定及时为用水人供水。《城市供水条例》第二十二条规定：“城市自来水供水企业和自建设施对外供水的企业应当保持不间断供水。由于工程施工、设备维修等原因确需停止供水的，应当经城市供水行政主管部门批准并提前２４小时通知用水单位和个人；因发生灾害或者紧急事故，不能提前通知的，应当在抢修的同时通知用水单位和个人，尽快恢复正常供水，并报告城市供水行政主管部门。”古塔宾馆在2012年7月份以前一直按照合同约定及有关规定交纳水费，7月份未交纳是因为该月水费比之前明显偏高，而自来水公司出具的7百多元的水费发票与要求交纳的费用金额不一致，且换表时的水表指数又有所更改，使古塔宾馆对水费金额产生了合理怀疑。古塔宾馆正在与自来水公司交涉，谁对谁错并未确定，古塔宾馆并非无故拒交水费。自来水公司对古塔宾馆停止供水之前虽向该市公用事业与房产局提出申请，但该局并未明确批准其停止供水。自来水公司对古塔宾馆停止供水缺乏事实和法律依据，属违约行为，应当立即为古塔宾馆恢复供水。根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第一百零七条关于“当事人一方不履行合同义务或者履行合同义务不符合约定的，应当承担继续履行、采取补救措施或者赔偿损失等违约责任”之规定，判决：自来水公司于判决生效后立即为古塔宾馆恢复供水。自来水公司上诉后，锦州市中级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是人民法院依法审理供用水合同纠纷，保护非公有制企业正常生产经营的典型案例。用水、用电是企业正常生产经营的基础，因此，对于非公有制企业在生产经营活动中发生的用水、用电纠纷，要及时依法审理，保证企业的正常生产经营。本案中，自来水公司在没有正当理由的情况下擅自停止供水，给古塔宾馆的正常经营带来很大影响。人民法院受理古塔宾馆的起诉后，依法及时审理了该案，判决自来水公司在判决生效后立即恢复供水，有效维护了古塔宾馆的合法权益。

六、邯郸市金城机电物资有限公司与磁县教育局买卖合同纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2013年1月，河北省磁县中小学校舍安全工程钢材采购项目采用竞争性谈判的方式对外招标，民营企业邯郸市金城机电物资有限公司（以下简称物资公司）依照《招标文件》投标并中标。2013年2月，河北省磁县教育局（以下简称县教育局）与物资公司签订了《采购合同》。虽然《招标文件》对采购货物的名称、数量、规格、单价等做了约定，但《采购合同》仅对合同金额进行了约定，对采购货物的名称、数量、单价、规格和标准均未约定，交货时间、运输要求、验收事项等亦未载明。合同订立后，县教育局一直未按合同约定向物资公司采购钢材。物资公司诉至法院，认为县中小学校舍安全工程已经竣工，但县教育局未按照合同约定向物资公司采购钢材，也未履行合同约定的任何义务，请求解除《采购合同》，判令县教育局赔偿物资公司经济损失。县教育局同意解除合同，但认为《采购合同》未对采购货物的名称、数量、规格、标准等进行明确约定，合同未能履行的原因不在县教育局，县教育局不应承担违约责任。

（二）裁判结果

河北省磁县人民法院一审认为：本案争议焦点在于物资公司与县教育局之间的《采购合同》是否成立以及县教育局是否应当承担违约责任。《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国合同法〉若干问题的解释（二）》第一条第一款规定：“当事人对合同是否成立存在争议，人民法院能够确定当事人名称或者姓名、标的和数量的，一般应当认定合同成立。但法律另有规定或者当事人另有约定的除外。”本案中，物资公司提交的《采购合同》中虽仅约定了合同金额，但根据《招标文件》、成交通知书及双方签订《采购合同》的目的，可知采购项目为钢材，数量为906.458吨，合同金额为3639429元，故物资公司与县教育局所签订的《采购合同》已成立。县教育局作为发包人，将相关工程分包给了某建筑公司，且约定其不提供材料、设备，导致物资公司与县教育局所签订的《采购合同》事实上不能履行，县教育局应承担不履行合同的违约责任。根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第九十七条关于“合同解除后，尚未履行的，终止履行；已经履行的，根据履行情况和合同性质，当事人可以要求恢复原状、采取其他补救措施、并有权要求赔偿损失”之规定，判决：一、解除物资公司与县教育局签订的《采购合同》；二、县教育局于判决生效后十日内支付物资公司相关损失39000元；三、驳回物资公司的其他诉讼请求。县教育局上诉后，邯郸市中级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是是规范政府机关不履行《采购合同》的典型案例。合同是当事人之间设立、变更、终止民事权利义务的协议，各方当事人都应当按照合同的约定全面履行自己的义务。一方当事人未按照合同约定履行合同，将侵害另一方当事人的合法权益。因此，对于未按照约定履行合同的当事人，应严格依据合同法的规定，依法追究其违约责任。本案中，县教育局通过招投标程序与物资公司签订《采购合同》后，并未按照《采购合同》向物资公司采购钢材，反而以合同未对货物名称、数量等进行约定为由推脱责任，造成物资公司无法实现合同目的。人民法院受理本案后，准确分析本案所涉《采购合同》的效力，依法判决县教育局承担违约责任，有效地保护了作为守约方的物资公司的合法权益。

七、沈阳重型冶矿机械制造公司四厂与沈阳北重冶矿电站设备研制有限公司等股东出资纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2010年10月18日，国有企业沈阳重型冶矿机械制造公司四厂（以下简称沈重四厂）与民营企业沈阳北重冶矿电站设备研制有限公司（以下简称北重公司）签订了《合资合作协议书》，约定：沈重四厂将五座厂房、办公楼评估作价，以固定资产方式入股到北重公司，所占投资比例为45%；另有五个自然人以货币出资350万元，占北重公司股份的55%；各方按照投资比例进行利益分红；沈重四厂的五处出资房产，经评估入股后归属北重公司，待具备一定条件时，办理产权变更手续。因沈重四厂一直未将出资房产过户至北重公司名下，北重公司诉至法院，要求沈重四厂履行出资义务。

（二）裁判结果

辽宁省沈阳市皇姑区人民法院一审认为：本案争议焦点在于沈重四厂是否已履行出资义务？《中华人民共和国公司法》第二十八条第一款规定：“股东应当按期足额缴纳公司章程中规定的各自所认缴的出资额。股东以货币出资的，应当将货币出资足额存入有限责任公司在银行开设的账户；以非货币财产出资的，应当依法办理其财产权的转移手续。”本案中，沈重四厂虽然将出资厂房交付北重公司使用，但未办理房产变更手续，沈重四厂未履行完出资义务，构成违约，应向北重公司履行出资义务。判决：沈重四厂于判决生效后十日内向北重公司履行股东出资义务，并协助办理房产的更名过户手续。沈重四厂上诉后，沈阳市中级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是规范国有企业依法履行出资义务的典型案例。沈重四厂与其他五个自然人股东共同出资设立北重公司，但没有按照出资协议履行出资义务，北重公司与其他股东通过诉讼寻求救济。人民法院受理该案后，认真审查沈重四厂出资义务的履行情况，根据《公司法》以及相关司法解释关于实物出资的规定，驳回沈重四厂关于已经履行出资义务的主张，依法支持北重公司与其他五个自然人股东要求沈重四厂履行出资义务的请求，体现了对不同所有制股东平等保护的法律原则，有效地维护了非公有制股东的合法权益。

国有资本、集体资本、非国有资本等交叉持股、相互融合的混合所有制经济，是我国基本经济制度的重要实现形式。发展混合所有制经济，必须平等保护国有资本与非国有资本。从公司出资来看，不管是公有制股东还是非公有制股东，都应依法履行出资义务，任何一方未履行出资义务的，另一方均可以依法要求其承担补足出资的违约责任。本案的审理，体现了不同所有制主体出资义务平等的理念，有效保护了混合所有制企业各类股东的合法权益。

八、中静实业（集团）有限公司与上海电力实业有限公司、中国水利电力物资有限公司、上海新能源环保工程有限公司、上海联合产权交易所股权转让纠纷案

（一）基本案情

民营企业中静实业(集团)有限公司（以下简称中静公司）、国有企业上海电力实业有限公司（以下简称电力公司）系上海新能源环保工程有限公司（以下简称新能源公司）的股东，分别持股38.2%、61.8%。2012年2月15日，新能源公司通过股东大会决议：同意电力公司转让其所持股份，转让价以评估价为依据；中静公司不放弃优先购买权。5月25日，新能源公司将股权公开转让材料报送某产权交易所。6月1日，产权交易所公告新能源公司61.8%股权转让的信息。7月2日，中静公司向产权交易所发函称，根据框架协议及补充协议，系争转让股权信息披露遗漏、权属存在争议，中静公司享有优先购买权，请求产权交易所暂停挂牌交易，重新披露信息。7月3日，中国水利电力物资有限公司（以下简称水利公司）与电力公司通过产权交易所签订产权交易合同。9月11日，新能源公司向水利公司出具出资证明书，并将其列入公司股东名册，但未能办理工商变更登记。中静公司诉至法院，认为电力公司擅自转让股份侵害了其优先购买权，请求判令中静公司对电力公司转让给水利公司的新能源公司61.8%股权享有优先购买权，并以转让价48,691,000元行使优先购买权。

（二）裁判结果

上海市黄浦区人民法院一审认为：股东优先购买权是公司法赋予股东的法定权利。《中华人民共和国公司法》第七十一条规定：“有限责任公司的股东之间可以相互转让其全部或者部分股权。股东向股东以外的人转让股权，应当经其他股东过半数同意。股东应就其股权转让事项书面通知其他股东征求同意，其他股东自接到书面通知之日起满三十日未答复的，视为同意转让。其他股东半数以上不同意转让的，不同意的股东应当购买该转让的股权；不购买的，视为同意转让。经股东同意转让的股权，在同等条件下，其他股东有优先购买权。两个以上股东主张行使优先购买权的，协商确定各自的购买比例；协商不成的，按照转让时各自的出资比例行使优先购买权。公司章程对股权转让另有规定的，从其规定。”本案中，中静公司未明示放弃优先购买权，且在股权交易前向产权交易所提出了异议，产权交易所在对中静公司提出的异议未予答复，且未告知交易是否如期进行的情况下，直接将电力公司股权拍卖给水利公司，侵害了中静公司的优先购买权，电力公司与水利公司的股权转让合同不发生效力。判决：中静公司对电力公司转让给水利公司的61.8%新能源公司的股权享有优先购买权。电力公司、水利公司上诉后，上海市第二中级人民法院判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是保护民营企业在有限责任公司股权转让时享有优先购买权的典型案例。电力公司作为国有企业，转让其股权时必须进场交易，但进场交易不能侵害其他股东的权利。产权交易所在中静公司提出异议却未告知是否如期交易的情况下，将电力公司的股权转让给水利公司，侵害了中静公司的优先购买权。人民法院审理本案时，平等对待不同所有制股东，依法保护非公有制企业中静公司的优先购买权。

混合所有制经济中，应当平等保护公有制经济主体与非公有制经济主体。由于混合所有制企业中，不同所有制经济主体的权利体现为对混合所有制企业的股权，故保护非公有制经济主体的权利就体现为对其股东权利的保障。有限责任公司中，股东对外转让股权时，其他股东的优先购买权是股权的重要内容之一，应依法予以保护。人民法院支持中静公司要求行使优先购买权的主张，体现了对混合所有制企业中非公有制股东的平等保护。

九、上海中邦机有限公司与上海第三机床厂、上海三机液压成套有限公司买卖合同纠纷案

（一）基本案情

民营企业上海中邦机有限公司（以下简称中邦公司）诉称，全民所有制企业上海第三机床厂（以下简称第三机床厂）出于转移亏损的车床生产线的目的，拟将普通磨床、普通车床系列整机生产线移转至中邦公司，中邦公司同意接受上述两条生产线的移转，并接受第三机床厂分离的职工。双方于2009年12月签订了转让协议，约定：如遇原材料价格变动，造成生产成本降低或升高时，任何一方均有权提供数据和证明材料，说明理由要求对方调整收购价格。合同签订后，原材料大幅上涨，但是第三机床厂未能按照合同的约定调整价格，也未支付货款。中邦公司先后提起（2011）松民二（商）初字第2077号案及（2013）松民二（商）初字第2435号案诉讼，要求第三机床厂支付货款及违约金。

第三机床厂提起反诉，认为中邦公司没有按约定的期限交付机床，同时还违反合同约定，将本应销售给第三机床厂的机床销售给了案外人进行谋利，并且交付给第三机床厂的部分机床不合格。故请求法院判令：1.中邦公司支付未按合同订单欠交155台车床及违约金2,421,000元；2.中邦公司支付擅自销售车床违约金3,230,000元;3.退回中邦公司不合格车床55台，中邦公司退货款总价3,690,275元;4.中邦公司支付退回车床造成的其他损失70,150元，车床售后服务费80,972.85元;5.中邦公司支付场地租赁及设备租赁费2,830,00元，车床模具费472,768元。

（二）裁判结果

上海市松江区人民法院受理两起案件后，依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第九十三条规定：“人民法院审理民事案件，根据当事人自愿的原则，在事实清楚的基础上，分清是非，进行调解”之规定，组织双方调解。对于货款部分，双方当事人在法院主持下，自愿达成调解协议：一、解除中邦公司与第三机床厂签订的框架协议及定点收购协议；二、中邦公司于2012年12月30日前返还第三机床厂167台加工租赁设备及配套专用工具、图纸技术文件等（详见租赁设备清单）；三、第三机床厂于2012年12月30日前偿付中邦公司货款2,429,661.97元；四、双方之间的违约责任另行协商处理，或可另案诉讼。关于违约金部分的处理，双方之间后来和解撤诉，互不追究违约责任。法院根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第九十七条第一款关于“调解达成协议，人民法院应当制作调解书”之规定，制作了（2011）松民二（商）初字第2077号民事调解书。对于违约金部分，双方和解，撤回（2013）松民二（商）初字第2435号案的本诉和反诉，互不追究违约责任。

（三）典型意义

本案是人民法院运用调解方式处理企业改制纠纷的典型案例。企业改制是我国特定历史时期的经济现象，具有较强的政策性，经常涉及职工安置问题。对于企业改制纠纷，应当在坚持依法审理的前提下，充分考虑企业改制具有政策性强的特点，善于运用调解手段，有效化解纠纷，确保各种所有制主体的合法权益不受侵害。本案的买卖合同实际是第三机床厂的改制内容之一：第三机床厂希望通过买卖合同剥离业务，将利润率较低的业务承包给中邦公司，并让中邦公司帮助安置职工；中邦公司则希望第三机床厂给其带来订单与潜在的市场机会。如市场不出现波动，确实会出现双赢的结果。但在实际生产经营过程中，原材料价格节节攀升，致使中邦公司的生产成本大幅增加，造成经营困难，中邦公司与第三机床厂沟通涨价后如何调整收购价格未果，产生纠纷。法院在当事人自愿的前提下，将案件分案处理，先调解解决了双方争议不大的货款问题，让中邦公司及时拿到应得的货款，维护了民营企业正常的生产经营。对于双方争议较大的违约金及反诉部分，法院经庭审审查和现场查看，发现双方互有违约，对双方晓以利害，最终双方经权衡利弊，达成案外和解，互不追究责任，并双双撤回了诉讼请求。本案所涉纠纷双方矛盾较大，还涉及到职工安置问题，处理不好容易引发社会矛盾，最终案件以一个调解、一个撤诉结案，并得到顺利执行，真正做到了案结事了，取得了较好的法律效果和社会效果。

十、海门市海永农机经营部与中国石油天然气股份有限公司上海销售分公司租赁合同纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2010年8月19日，民营企业海门市海永农机经营部（以下简称海永农机部）与中国石油天然气股份有限公司上海销售分公司（以下简称中石油上海分公司）签订《加油站资产及经营权租赁合同》，由中石油上海分公司向海永农机部租赁某加油站资产及整体经营权；租赁期限为15年，自加油站交接之日起计算租期，前两年租金为每年23万元，第三年起每年18万元。合同签订后，双方于2010年9月1日办理交接手续，加油站由中石油上海分公司管理经营，但因相应证照无法变更，中石油上海分公司没有按期给付租金。海永农机部诉至法院，请求判令中石油上海分公司支付租金和违约金。中石油上海分公司反诉称，由于海永农机部未改制为公司制企业，不同意变更营业执照，导致中石油上海分公司不能正常合法经营加油站，合同目的无法实现，中石油上海分公司有权要求解除合同，请求判令解除《加油站资产及经营权租赁合同》，并要求海永农机部赔偿损失35403803元。

（二）裁判结果

上海市浦东新区人民法院一审认为，海永农机部与中石油上海分公司签订的《加油站资产及经营权租赁合同》合法有效。中石油上海分公司作为业内知名企业的分公司，其有能力亦有条件对商业风险作出合理判断，对商业决策失误可能造成的损失应有充分认知。合同订立时，双方进行了沟通与协商，对合同履行期间可能出现的证照无法变更情形及解决方案亦有过考量与约定。合同签订后，双方办理了交接手续，海永农机部亦履行了协助义务，在证照无法变更的情况下，双方未达成补充协议，由此引发的合同目的无法实现之风险，不应归责于海永农机部。根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第九十七条关于“合同解除后，尚未履行的，终止履行；已经履行的，根据履行情况和合同性质，当事人可以要求恢复原状、采取其他补救措施、并有权要求赔偿损失”之规定，判决：一、解除《加油站资产及经营权租赁合同》；二、中石油上海分公司应于判决生效之日起十日内支付海永农机部租金；三、中石油上海分公司应于判决生效之日起十日内支付海永农机部迟延付款违约金；四、中石油上海分公司应于判决生效之日起十日内支付海永农机部合同解除违约金56万元；五、驳回中石油上海分公司其余反诉请求。中石油上海分公司上诉后，上海市第一中级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是人民法院依法审理大型国有企业与非公有制企业之间租赁合同纠纷的典型案例。本案争议焦点在于如何认定加油站相应证照无法变更时海永农机部与中石油上海分公司各自应承担的责任。中石油上海分公司作为大型国有企业，有能力亦有条件对加油站证照可能无法变更的商业风险做出合理判断与认知。因此，在合同仅对海永农机部课以协助办理并提供必要材料的义务时，中石油上海分公司不能将证照未能变更导致的合同目的无法实现归责于海永农机部，而应自行承担这一商业风险所带来的后果。本案双方当事人不仅所有制性质不同，而且市场地位、经济实力悬殊。人民法院严格遵循平等保护原则，综合考虑合同双方缔约能力和行业经验，依法准确区分商业风险和主观过错，确定了合同目的不能实现的原因和后果，依法公正保护了不同规模、不同区域、不同所有制主体的合法权益。

Typical Civil and Commercial Cases of the Supreme People's Court on Equal Protection of the Non public Economy and Promoting the Healthy Development of the Non public Economy in accordance with the Law

catalogue

1. Dispute case between Liang Changyun and the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government over the transfer contract of construction land use rights

2. Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Qinghai Meteorological Bureau Property Damage Compensation Dispute Case

3. Contract dispute case between Chongqing Ronghao Investment (Group) Co., Ltd. and the People's Government of Jiangyang District, Luzhou City

4. Bankruptcy and Reorganization Case of Foshan Baiye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd

5. Dispute over Water Supply Contract between Jinzhou Municipal Water Supply Corporation and Guta Hotel in Guta District, Jinzhou City

6. Dispute over the Sales Contract between Handan Jincheng Electromechanical Materials Co., Ltd. and Cixian Education Bureau

7. Dispute over Capital Contributions between Shenyang Heavy Metallurgical Machinery Manufacturing Company's Fourth Factory and Shenyang Beizhong Metallurgical Power Station Equipment Development Co., Ltd. and Other Shareholders

8. Dispute over Equity Transfer between Zhongjing Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Electric Power Industry Co., Ltd., China Water Resources and Power Materials Co., Ltd., Shanghai New Energy Environmental Protection Engineering Co., Ltd., and Shanghai United Property Exchange

9. Dispute over Sales Contract between Shanghai Zhongbang Machinery Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Third Machine Tool Factory and Shanghai Third Machine Hydraulic Complete Set Co., Ltd

10. Case of Lease Contract Dispute between Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Business Department of Haimen City and Shanghai Sales Branch of China National Petroleum Corporation

1、 Dispute case between Liang Changyun and the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government over the transfer contract of construction land use rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 2014, Liang Changyun won the state-owned construction land use right Huo Guotu Chuo [2011] No. 82 through bidding. The "Confirmation Letter for Listing and Trading of State owned Construction Land Use Right" and "Contract for Transfer of State owned Construction Land Use Right" signed with the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government stipulated that the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County would deliver the transferred land to Liang Changyun before September 17, 2014, with a land use right transfer fee of 5953350 yuan, The deposit is 4 million yuan, which is used as the land transfer price and shall be paid in full within 60 days from the date of signing the contract. If the contract stipulates that the transferor fails to provide the transferred land on time for more than 60 days and still cannot deliver the land after being urged to do so, the transferee has the right to terminate the contract. The transferor shall double the deposit and refund the remaining part of the paid transfer price for state-owned construction land use rights. The transferee may also request compensation from the transferor for losses. After the contract was signed, Liang Changyun paid a deposit of 4 million yuan and paid the remaining 1953350 yuan, but the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government did not deliver the land as agreed. Liang Changyun filed a lawsuit and requested the People's Court to adjudge the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government to double the deposit of 8 million yuan, refund the paid land transfer fee of 1953350 yuan, and compensate for the loss of 1 million yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Lu'an City, Anhui Province held in the first instance that the "Contract for the Transfer of Construction Land Use Rights" in this case is legal and valid. Liang Changyun paid all the land transfer fees in accordance with the agreed time limit in the contract. The failure of the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government to deliver construction land suitable for development within the agreed time limit in the contract constitutes a breach of contract and should be liable for breach of contract in accordance with the law. According to the contract, Liang Changyun has the right to terminate the contract, request the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government to double the deposit, return the paid land transfer fee, and assume compensation responsibility. However, the amount of deposit stipulated in the contract in this case is significantly too high and should be adjusted according to law. The loss claimed by Liang Changyun lacks sufficient evidence to prove that although there are indeed operational and financing costs, considering that the amount of double refund of the deposit is not too much higher or lower than the actual loss, his claim for additional interest and compensation for losses is not supported in accordance with the law. Judgment: 1. Dissolve the "Contract for the Transfer of State owned Construction Land Use Rights" signed between Liang Changyun and the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government; 2、 The Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government returned a double deposit of 2.38134 million yuan to Liang Changyun; 3、 The Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government returned the land transfer fee of 4.76268 million yuan that Liang Changyun had already paid; 3、 Reject Liang Changyun's other litigation requests. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of violating the provisions of the contract for the transfer of state-owned land use rights and bearing corresponding liability for breach of contract. In practice, in the process of transferring state-owned land use rights, due to the non-standard behavior of some local governments, the land cannot be delivered according to the contract after signing the state-owned land use rights transfer contract with non-public enterprises, which infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of non-public economic entities. In this situation, safeguarding the contractual rights and interests of non-public economic entities in accordance with the law is an important manifestation of the principle of equal protection of their civil rights. In this case, the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government signed a land use right transfer contract with Liang Changyun through an open bidding process. Liang Changyun also paid the land transfer fee according to the contract agreement, but the failure of the Land and Resources Bureau of Huoqiu County People's Government to deliver the land according to the contract constitutes a breach of contract. Liang Changyun requested reasonable requests such as termination of the contract, return of the land transfer fee, and double return of the deposit according to the contract agreement, All have received support from the people's court. When the people's court tried this case, it treated government agencies and non-public economic entities equally, accurately applied the relevant provisions of the Contract Law, supported Liang Changyun's relevant litigation requests in accordance with the law, and properly safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the non-public economy.

2、 Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Qinghai Meteorological Bureau Property Damage Compensation Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In May 2011, the private enterprise Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. completed relevant procedures and constructed a commercial and residential community project located in Xining City, Qinghai Province. The only channel currently under construction was blocked by the Qinghai Provincial Meteorological Bureau, resulting in the inability to carry out construction. After litigation and enforcement, the passage was cleared, resulting in a total of 112 days of suspension. Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. sued and demanded that the Qinghai Meteorological Bureau pay a total of 4358404.81 yuan for various losses caused by the shutdown, including liquidated damages, personnel salary losses, supervision fee compensation losses, loan interest and penalty interest losses.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Xining City, Qinghai Province held in the first instance that, According to Article 83 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, "The neighboring parties of immovable property shall handle the neighboring relationships in areas such as water interception, drainage, passage, ventilation, and lighting in a spirit that is conducive to production, convenient living, unity and mutual assistance, and fair and reasonable. If any obstruction or loss is caused to the neighboring parties, the infringement shall be stopped, the obstruction shall be eliminated, and the losses shall be compensated" and According to Article 100 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (Trial), which stipulates that "if one party must pass on the land used by the adjacent party, permission shall be granted; if losses are caused as a result, appropriate compensation shall be given", Qinghai Meteorological Bureau should bear the liability for compensation for property damage caused by infringement to Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Judgment: Qinghai Provincial Meteorological Bureau shall compensate Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. with various economic losses of 1055240 yuan; Reject other litigation requests from Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.

After the Qinghai Provincial Meteorological Bureau and Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. appealed, the Qinghai Provincial High People's Court made a second instance judgment: rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of civil liability for obstruction caused by neighboring relationships. In practice, there are civil disputes arising from non contractual relationships such as neighboring relationships between non-public enterprises, government agencies, and state-owned enterprises. In such disputes, it is also necessary to protect the legitimate rights and interests of non-public enterprises in accordance with legal provisions, and other entities cannot be allowed to arbitrarily infringe on their legitimate rights and interests without bearing corresponding legal responsibilities. In this case, the fact that the Qinghai Provincial Meteorological Bureau blocked the only channel under construction for the development and construction of the Qinghai Provincial Meteorological Bureau's old house renovation project by Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. constitutes infringement has been confirmed by a legal document in effect in another case. For the property losses caused by this infringement behavior, Qinghai Provincial Meteorological Bureau should compensate Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Therefore, the lawsuit request of Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. has been supported by the people's court to the extent supported by evidence. When the people's court tried the case, it treated both parties equally, accurately applied relevant provisions such as the General Principles of the Civil Law and its judicial interpretations, supported the corresponding litigation requests of Qinghai Maoxiang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. in accordance with the law, and safeguarded its legitimate rights and interests as a non-public enterprise.

3、 Contract dispute case between Chongqing Ronghao Investment (Group) Co., Ltd. and the People's Government of Jiangyang District, Luzhou City

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 2008, the People's Government of Jiangyang District, Luzhou City (hereinafter referred to as the district government) signed a series of land consolidation project investment agreements with private enterprise Chongqing Ronghao Investment (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ronghao Investment Company) through public investment, agreeing that Ronghao Investment Company would invest 320 million yuan to carry out land consolidation on two plots of land in the area. After the agreement was signed, Ronghao Investment Company successively invested over 100 million yuan in the project. In 2014, the district government sent a letter to Ronghao Investment Company stating that the above agreement violated the spirit of the "Notice on Regulating the Management of Revenue and Expenditure from the Transfer of State owned Land Use Rights" issued by the General Office of the State Council and the "Notice on Further Strengthening the Management of Revenue and Expenditure from the Transfer of State owned Land Use Rights" jointly issued by the Sichuan Provincial Department of Land and Resources, the Provincial Department of Finance, the Provincial Supervision Department, and the Provincial Audit Department, requesting the termination of the performance of the above agreement. Ronghao Investment Company filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting confirmation that the letter from the district government terminating the performance of the agreement is invalid, and requesting that the district government continue to perform the agreement.

（2） Judgment results

The Chongqing Higher People's Court held in the first instance that the effectiveness of the district government's termination action should be examined in accordance with Article 94 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China. This article stipulates: "In one of the following circumstances, the parties may terminate the contract: (1) due to force majeure, the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved; (2) before the expiration of the performance period, one party clearly indicates or indicates through its own actions that it will not perform the main debt; (3) one party delays in performing the main debt and fails to perform it within a reasonable period after being urged; (4) Either party delays in fulfilling its obligations or commits other breach of contract, resulting in the inability to achieve the purpose of the contract; （5） Other circumstances stipulated by law In this case, the two documents mentioned by the district government are not laws or administrative regulations, and the agreements involved in this case are not explicitly prohibited. The reason why the district government requests to terminate the relevant agreements based on policy changes cannot be established, and the letter of termination of the performance agreement issued by the district government does not have the effect of terminating the contract. Judgment: The letter confirming the termination of the agreement is invalid, and the district government continues to fulfill the relevant agreement signed with Ronghao Investment Company. After the first instance judgment, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of regulating the unauthorized termination of civil and commercial contracts by government agencies. In practice, some local governments, after signing civil and commercial contracts with non-public enterprises, use various excuses to deny the validity of the contracts, achieve the purpose of not fulfilling the contracts, affect the normal market transaction order, and infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of non-public enterprises, which should be regulated. In this case, the district government entered into an investment agreement with Ronghao Investment Company through a public investment promotion process. However, after Ronghao Investment Company made a large amount of investment, it was against integrity to request the termination of the agreement on the grounds that the investment agreement violated relevant documents. When the court heard the case, it treated Ronghao Investment Company and the district government equally, accurately applied the relevant provisions of the Contract Law on contract termination, and supported Ronghao Investment Company's request to continue fulfilling the agreement in accordance with the law, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of non-public enterprises.

4、 Bankruptcy and Reorganization Case of Foshan Baiye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd

（1） Basic facts of the case

Guangdong Baiyi Copper Industry Co., Ltd., Guangdong Baiyi Doors and Windows Curtain Wall Co., Ltd., Guangdong Baiyi Investment Co., Ltd., Foshan Baiye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Baiye Company), Guangdong Baiyi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., and Guangdong Yinbai Innovation Aluminum Industry Co., Ltd. are six affiliated companies of the private enterprise Baiyi Group. Six companies submitted bankruptcy reorganization applications to the court on January 12, 2015, citing their inability to repay their debts as they fell due. After investigation, it was found that Baiye Company's own debt was not significant, but it was interconnected with five other companies for mutual protection, with external guarantee debts totaling over 800 million yuan; The cash chains of the six companies mentioned above are broken, unable to maintain normal production and operation, unable to pay for goods, and the principal and interest of bank loans due, resulting in a significant loss of solvency; Some suppliers and banks sued six companies and seized some assets; If creditors file lawsuits, execute six companies, or directly apply for bankruptcy liquidation of six companies, it will result in nearly 1300 employees losing their jobs, seriously affecting social stability; The six companies have high-quality assets and there is a possibility of revitalizing assets and resuming production and operation through bankruptcy restructuring.

（2） Judgment results

On January 20, 2015, the Intermediate People's Court of Foshan City, Guangdong Province convened representatives of 22 banks, financial institutions, and suppliers in accordance with the law to hear opinions on the application for bankruptcy reorganization of six companies. On February 5th, the court organized a hearing for the top three creditors of five dissenting banks and six companies in accordance with the law, hearing again the objections raised by some banks and seeking their opinions on the bankruptcy reorganization of the six companies. On March 16th, the court reviewed the reasons for bankruptcy and the possibility of reorganization, and in accordance with Article 71 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that "if the people's court finds that the reorganization application meets the provisions of this Law, it shall rule on the debtor's reorganization and make a public announcement", ruled to accept the reorganization applications of six companies, including Baiye Company, and designated a manager to take over Baiye Company. On June 15th, the manager held the second creditors' meeting, and each voting group approved a restructuring plan (draft) to pay off debts through the injection of funds by new investors. On the same day, According to Article 86 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China, the court When all voting groups pass the draft reorganization plan, the reorganization plan shall be deemed to have been passed. Within ten days from the date of passing the reorganization plan, the debtor or manager shall apply to the people's court for approval of the reorganization plan. If the people's court deems it to be in compliance with the provisions of this Law after examination, it shall make a civil ruling within thirty days from the date of receiving the application, terminate the reorganization procedure, and make a public announcement, Approve the restructuring plan and terminate the restructuring process of Baiye Company. Since then, Baiye Company has entered the execution stage of the restructuring plan.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case where the people's court uses the bankruptcy reorganization system to help struggling private enterprises overcome difficulties. Six affiliated enterprises, including Baiye Company, have filed for bankruptcy. After accepting the bankruptcy application, the people's court visited six companies on site to investigate their production and business status, and listened to the opinions of major creditors and supplier representatives on the bankruptcy reorganization of the six companies. After investigation, the people's court found that the assets of six companies are of high quality. If bankruptcy restructuring is used to revitalize assets and restore production and operation, it is beneficial to increase the repayment rate of creditors, especially ordinary creditors such as suppliers, and stabilize the emotions of hundreds of suppliers. Nearly 1300 employees will not face the risk of unemployment, and local social harmony and stability will be effectively maintained. Moreover, the vast majority of creditors hope for the reorganization of the six debtors. At that time, some projects had already been taken over by investors, but they all stated that they should be carried out after the commencement of the reorganization proceedings. Based on the above facts, the people's court merged and went bankrupt six companies based on their bankruptcy applications, and rescued Baiye Company through bankruptcy reorganization, achieving a win-win situation for creditors, debtors, and other stakeholders.

At present, China is in a period of intertwined economic growth, structural adjustment pains, and difficulties in energy conversion. The downward pressure on the economy is increasing, and many non-public enterprises are unable to repay their debts due to the rupture of the capital chain. Accurately handling corporate bankruptcy cases, preventing and resolving corporate debt risks, especially fully utilizing the special functions of bankruptcy reorganization procedures, revitalizing the assets of high-quality enterprises, enabling them to resume production and operation, is of great significance for rescuing distressed non-public enterprises, helping and supporting non-public enterprises that comply with national industrial policies to recover their vitality and return to the market.

5、 Dispute over Water Supply Contract between Jinzhou Municipal Water Supply Corporation and Guta Hotel in Guta District, Jinzhou City

（1） Basic facts of the case

There is a water supply contract between Jinzhou Municipal Water Supply Company (hereinafter referred to as the Water Supply Company) and the private enterprise Guta Hotel in Guta District, Jinzhou City (hereinafter referred to as Guta Hotel). Before July 2012, Guta Hotel had paid water fees in accordance with the contract and relevant regulations. In early July 2012, the staff of the water company informed Guta Hotel that the monthly water fee was over 10000 yuan. Guta Hotel raised objections to this and did not pay it. On July 17th, the water company issued an invoice for the month's water consumption of 120 tons and water fee of 720 yuan to Guta Hotel, requesting payment, but Guta Hotel did not pay. On July 24th, the water company replaced the water meter for Guta Hotel, and the legal representative of Guta Hotel and the staff of the water company signed the signature form. On August 8th and September 6th, the water supply company sent two water suspension notices to Guta Hotel, limiting Guta Hotel to pay 11904 yuan of overdue water fees before 9:00 am on August 10th and 12624 yuan of overdue water fees before 9:00 am on September 10th. Failure to pay within the time limit will be subject to water suspension treatment in accordance with relevant regulations, and the consequences will be borne by oneself. The Guta Hotel has not yet paid the water fee due to objections and unsuccessful negotiations with the water company. On September 3rd, the water company applied to the city's Public Utilities and Real Estate Bureau to stop supplying water to the Guta Hotel, and the bureau issued a directive stating that it "agrees to handle it in accordance with relevant regulations". On September 11th, the water company stopped supplying water to the Guta Hotel. Guta Hotel filed a lawsuit demanding that the water company restore water supply.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Guta District, Jinzhou City, Liaoning Province held in the first instance that the water supply company, as a water supply unit, should provide timely water supply to the water users in accordance with the contract and legal provisions. Article 22 of the Urban Water Supply Regulations stipulates that: Urban tap water supply enterprises and enterprises that build their own facilities for external water supply should maintain uninterrupted water supply. If it is necessary to stop water supply due to engineering construction, equipment maintenance, and other reasons, approval from the urban water supply administrative department should be obtained and the water consuming units and individuals should be notified 24 hours in advance. If there is a disaster or emergency that cannot be notified in advance, the water consuming units and individuals should be notified during emergency repairs to restore normal water supply as soon as possible, And report to the administrative department in charge of urban water supply Before July 2012, Guta Hotel had been paying the water fee in accordance with the contract and relevant regulations. The reason for not paying in July was because the water fee for that month was significantly higher than before, and the water fee invoice of over 700 yuan issued by the water supply company was inconsistent with the required fee amount, and the water meter index was changed during the meter change, which caused Guta Hotel to have reasonable doubts about the water fee amount. The Guta Hotel is currently negotiating with the water company, and it has not been determined who is right or wrong. Guta Hotel did not unreasonably refuse to pay the water fee. Although the water company applied to the city's Public Utilities and Real Estate Bureau before stopping water supply to the Guta Hotel, the bureau did not explicitly approve the cessation of water supply. The water company lacks factual and legal basis to stop water supply to Guta Hotel, which is a breach of contract and should immediately restore water supply to Guta Hotel. According to Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, which states that "if one party fails to fulfill its contractual obligations or fails to fulfill its contractual obligations in accordance with the agreement, it shall bear the liability for breach of contract, such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures, or compensating for losses." The judgment states that the Zilai Water Company shall immediately restore water supply to the Guta Hotel after the judgment takes effect. After the appeal by the water company, the Intermediate People's Court of Jinzhou City ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case where the people's court tries disputes over water supply and use contracts in accordance with the law to protect the normal production and operation of non-public enterprises. Water and electricity are the basis for normal production and operation of enterprises. Therefore, disputes over water and electricity that arise in the production and operation activities of non-public enterprises should be promptly and legally tried to ensure the normal production and operation of the enterprise. In this case, the water company stopped water supply without justifiable reasons, which had a significant impact on the normal operation of Guta Hotel. After accepting the lawsuit of Guta Hotel, the people's court promptly heard the case in accordance with the law, and ruled that the water company immediately restored water supply after the judgment came into effect, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of Guta Hotel.

6、 Handan Jincheng Electromechanical Materials Co., Ltd. and Cixian Education Bureau Sales Contract Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In January 2013, the steel procurement project for the safety engineering of primary and secondary schools in Cixian County, Hebei Province was tendered through competitive negotiation. Handan Jincheng Electromechanical Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Materials Company), a private enterprise, bid and won the bid in accordance with the "Bidding Documents". In February 2013, the Education Bureau of Cixian County, Hebei Province (hereinafter referred to as the County Education Bureau) signed a "Procurement Contract" with the material company. Although the "Bidding Document" specifies the name, quantity, specifications, unit price, etc. of the purchased goods, the "Procurement Contract" only specifies the contract amount, and does not specify the name, quantity, unit price, specifications, and standards of the purchased goods. Delivery time, transportation requirements, acceptance matters, etc. are also not specified. After the contract was signed, the county education bureau has not purchased steel from the material company as agreed in the contract. The material company filed a lawsuit to the court, claiming that the safety project for the county primary and secondary school buildings had been completed, but the county education bureau did not purchase steel from the material company as agreed in the contract, nor did it fulfill any obligations stipulated in the contract. The company requested the termination of the "procurement contract" and ordered the county education bureau to compensate the material company for its economic losses. The County Education Bureau agrees to terminate the contract, but believes that the "Procurement Contract" does not clearly stipulate the name, quantity, specifications, standards, etc. of the purchased goods. The reason for the failure to fulfill the contract is not the County Education Bureau, and the County Education Bureau should not be liable for breach of contract.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the People's Court of Cixian County, Hebei Province held that the focus of controversy in this case lies in whether the "Procurement Contract" between the material company and the county education bureau is established and whether the county education bureau should bear the responsibility for breach of contract. Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (2) stipulates: "If there is a dispute between the parties regarding the formation of the contract, and the people's court can determine the name, subject matter, and quantity of the parties, the contract shall generally be deemed to be established. However, unless otherwise provided by law or agreed by the parties, Although the "Procurement Contract" submitted by the material company only specifies the contract amount, according to the "Bidding Document", the transaction notice, and the purpose of signing the "Procurement Contract" by both parties, it is known that the procurement project is steel, with a quantity of 906.458 tons and a contract amount of 3639429 yuan. Therefore, the "Procurement Contract" signed between the material company and the county education bureau has been established. As the employer, the County Education Bureau subcontracted the relevant project to a certain construction company and agreed that it would not provide materials and equipment, resulting in the material company's inability to fulfill the "Procurement Contract" signed with the County Education Bureau. The County Education Bureau shall bear the responsibility for breach of contract for not fulfilling the contract. According to Article 97 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that "after the termination of the contract, if the contract has not been fulfilled, the performance shall be terminated; if the contract has already been fulfilled, the parties may demand restoration to its original state, take other remedial measures, and have the right to demand compensation for losses", the judgment is as follows: firstly, terminate the "Procurement Contract" signed between the material company and the county education bureau; 2、 The county education bureau shall pay 39000 yuan to the material company for related losses within ten days after the judgment takes effect; 3、 Reject other litigation requests from the material company. After the appeal from the County Education Bureau, the Intermediate People's Court of Handan City ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of regulating government agencies' failure to fulfill the "Procurement Contract". A contract is an agreement between the parties to establish, modify, and terminate civil rights and obligations, and all parties shall fully fulfill their obligations in accordance with the provisions of the contract. If one party fails to fulfill the contract as agreed in the contract, it will infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of the other party. Therefore, for parties who fail to fulfill the contract as agreed, they should strictly follow the provisions of the Contract Law and be held liable for breach of contract in accordance with the law. In this case, after the county education bureau signed the "Procurement Contract" with the material company through the bidding process, it did not purchase steel from the material company according to the "Procurement Contract". Instead, it shirked responsibility on the grounds that the contract did not specify the name and quantity of goods, causing the material company to be unable to achieve the purpose of the contract. After accepting this case, the People's Court accurately analyzed the effectiveness of the "Procurement Contract" involved in this case, and ruled that the County Education Bureau should bear the responsibility for breach of contract in accordance with the law, effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the material company as the complying party.

7、 Dispute over Capital Contributions between Shenyang Heavy Metallurgical Machinery Manufacturing Company's Fourth Factory and Shenyang Beizhong Metallurgical Power Station Equipment Development Co., Ltd. and Other Shareholders

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 18, 2010, the state-owned enterprise Shenyang Heavy Metallurgical Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. No. 4 Factory (hereinafter referred to as Shenyang Heavy Metallurgical Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd.) and the private enterprise Shenyang Beizhong Metallurgical Power Station Equipment Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beizhong Company) signed a "Joint Venture and Cooperation Agreement", which stipulated that Shenyang Heavy Metallurgical Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. will evaluate and value five factory buildings and office buildings, and invest in Beizhong Company as fixed assets, accounting for 45% of the investment proportion; Another five natural persons contributed 3.5 million yuan in currency, accounting for 55% of the shares of Beizhong Company; All parties shall distribute profits in accordance with the investment ratio; The five invested properties of Shenyang Heavy Industry Fourth Factory belong to Beijing Heavy Industry Corporation after being evaluated and invested. When certain conditions are met, the property rights change procedures will be handled. Due to the fact that Shenyang Heavy Industry Fourth Factory has not transferred the contributed property to the name of Beizhong Company, Beizhong Company has filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that Shenyang Heavy Industry Fourth Factory fulfill its investment obligations.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Huanggu District, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province held in the first instance that the focus of controversy in this case lies in whether Shenyang Heavy Industry Fourth Factory has fulfilled its investment obligations? Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Shareholders shall pay their respective subscribed capital contributions in full and on time as stipulated in the company's articles of association. If shareholders make capital contributions in currency, they shall deposit the full amount of their currency contributions into the bank account of the limited liability company. If they make capital contributions in non monetary property, they shall handle the transfer procedures of their property rights in accordance with the law, Although Shenzhong Fourth Factory has delivered the invested factory building to Beizhong Company for use, the property change procedures have not been completed. Shenzhong Fourth Factory has not fulfilled its investment obligations, which constitutes a breach of contract and should fulfill its investment obligations to Beizhong Company. Judgment: Within ten days after the judgment takes effect, Shen Zhongsi Factory shall fulfill its shareholder contribution obligations to Beizhong Company and assist in handling the procedures for renaming and transferring the property. After Shen Zhongsi Factory appealed, the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of regulating state-owned enterprises to fulfill their investment obligations in accordance with the law. Shenzhong Fourth Factory and five other natural person shareholders jointly invested to establish Beizhong Company, but failed to fulfill their investment obligations in accordance with the investment agreement. Beizhong Company and other shareholders sought relief through litigation. After accepting the case, the people's court carefully reviewed the performance of the investment obligations of Shen Chong Fourth Factory. In accordance with the provisions of the Company Law and relevant judicial interpretations on physical investment, it rejected Shen Chong Fourth Factory's claim that it had already fulfilled its investment obligations. In accordance with the law, it supported the request of Beizhong Company and five other natural person shareholders to fulfill Shen Chong Fourth Factory's investment obligations, reflecting the legal principle of equal protection for shareholders of different ownership systems, Effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of non-public shareholders.

The mixed ownership economy characterized by cross shareholding and mutual integration of state-owned capital, collective capital, and non-state-owned capital is an important form of implementation of China's basic economic system. To develop a mixed ownership economy, it is necessary to equally protect state-owned and non-state-owned capital. From the perspective of company investment, both public and non-public shareholders should fulfill their investment obligations in accordance with the law. If either party fails to fulfill their investment obligations, the other party can legally demand that they bear the liability for breach of contract to make up the investment. The trial of this case reflects the concept of equal investment obligations among different ownership entities, effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of various shareholders in mixed ownership enterprises.

8、 Dispute over Equity Transfer between Zhongjing Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Electric Power Industry Co., Ltd., China Water Resources and Power Materials Co., Ltd., Shanghai New Energy Environmental Protection Engineering Co., Ltd., and Shanghai United Property Exchange

（1） Basic facts of the case

Private enterprise Zhongjing Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongjing Company) and state-owned enterprise Shanghai Electric Power Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Electric Power Company) are shareholders of Shanghai New Energy Environmental Protection Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as New Energy Company), holding 38.2% and 61.8% respectively. On February 15, 2012, the New Energy Company passed a resolution at the shareholders' meeting: agreeing to the transfer of its shares by the power company, with the transfer price based on the evaluation price; Zhongjing Company does not waive the right of first refusal. On May 25th, the new energy company submitted its equity public transfer materials to a certain property exchange. On June 1st, the equity exchange announced the transfer of 61.8% of the equity of the new energy company. On July 2nd, Zhongjing Company sent a letter to the Property Rights Exchange stating that, according to the framework agreement and supplementary agreement, there were omissions in the disclosure of equity transfer information and disputes over ownership. Zhongjing Company has the right of first refusal and requests the Property Rights Exchange to suspend listing and re disclose information. On July 3rd, China Water Resources and Electric Power Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Water Resources Company) signed a property rights trading contract with the power company through the property rights exchange. On September 11th, the new energy company issued a capital contribution certificate to the water conservancy company and included it in the company's shareholder register, but failed to complete the industrial and commercial change registration. Zhongjing Company filed a lawsuit with the court, claiming that the unauthorized transfer of shares by the power company infringed on its right of first refusal. It requested that Zhongjing Company be ordered to have the right of first refusal to purchase 61.8% of the new energy company's equity transferred by the power company to the water conservancy company, and exercise the right of first refusal at a transfer price of 48691000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai held in the first instance that the shareholder's right of first refusal is a legal right granted to shareholders by the Company Law. Article 71 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: Shareholders of a limited liability company may transfer all or part of their equity to each other. If a shareholder wishes to transfer equity to a person other than a shareholder, it shall require the consent of more than half of the other shareholders. Shareholders shall notify the other shareholders in writing of the transfer of their equity to seek their consent. If the other shareholders fail to respond within 30 days from the date of receiving the written notice, they shall be deemed to have agreed to the transfer. If more than half of the other shareholders do not agree to the transfer, the dissenting shareholders shall purchase the shares Purchase the equity to be transferred; Those who do not purchase shall be deemed to have agreed to the transfer. If the equity is transferred with the consent of the shareholders, other shareholders have the right of first refusal under the same conditions. If two or more shareholders claim to exercise the right of first refusal, their respective purchase proportions shall be determined through negotiation; If negotiation fails, the right of first refusal shall be exercised in accordance with the respective proportions of investment at the time of transfer. If the articles of association provide otherwise for the transfer of equity, such provisions shall prevail In this case, Zhongjing Company did not explicitly waive its right of first refusal and raised objections to the equity exchange before the equity transaction. The equity exchange did not respond to the objections raised by Zhongjing Company and did not inform the water conservancy company whether the transaction was carried out as scheduled, directly auctioning the equity of the power company to the water conservancy company, infringing on Zhongjing Company's right of first refusal. The equity transfer contract between the power company and the water conservancy company is not effective. Judgment: Zhongjing Company has the right of first refusal to purchase 61.8% of the equity of the new energy company transferred from the power company to the water conservancy company. After the appeal by the power company and water conservancy company, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of protecting private enterprises from the right of first refusal in the transfer of equity in a limited liability company. As a state-owned enterprise, power companies must enter the market for trading when transferring their equity, but entering the market for trading cannot infringe on the rights of other shareholders. The property rights exchange transferred the equity of the power company to the water conservancy company without informing Zhongjing Company whether to proceed with the transaction as scheduled, which violated Zhongjing Company's right of first refusal. When the people's court tried this case, it treated shareholders of different ownership equally and protected the preemptive right of non public owned enterprises in accordance with the law.

In a mixed ownership economy, equal protection should be given to both public and non-public economic entities. Due to the fact that in mixed ownership enterprises, the rights of different economic entities are reflected in the equity of mixed ownership enterprises, protecting the rights of non-public economic entities is reflected in safeguarding their shareholder rights. In a limited liability company, when shareholders transfer equity to others, the preemptive right of other shareholders is one of the important contents of equity and should be protected in accordance with the law. The people's court supports Zhongjing Company's claim to exercise the right of first refusal, reflecting equal protection for non-public shareholders in mixed ownership enterprises.

9、 Dispute over the Sales Contract between Shanghai Zhongbang Machinery Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Third Machine Tool Factory and Shanghai Third Machine Hydraulic Complete Set Co., Ltd

（1） Basic facts of the case

Shanghai Zhongbang Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongbang Company), a private enterprise, sued that Shanghai Third Machine Tool Factory (hereinafter referred to as Third Machine Tool Factory), a state-owned enterprise, intends to transfer the production lines of ordinary grinding machines and lathe series machines to Zhongbang Company for the purpose of transferring the loss making lathe production line. Zhongbang Company agrees to accept the transfer of the two production lines mentioned above and accepts the separation of employees from Third Machine Tool Factory. Both parties signed a transfer agreement in December 2009, which stipulated that in the event of a change in raw material prices causing a decrease or increase in production costs, either party has the right to provide data and supporting materials, explaining the reasons for requesting the other party to adjust the purchase price. After the contract was signed, the raw materials significantly increased, but the Third Machine Tool Factory failed to adjust the price as agreed in the contract and did not pay the purchase price. Zhongbang Company has filed lawsuits in the cases of (2011) Songmin'er (Shang) Chuzi No. 2077 and (2013) Songmin'er (Shang) Chuzi No. 2435, demanding that the Third Machine Tool Factory pay the payment for goods and breach of contract damages.

The Third Machine Tool Factory filed a counterclaim, claiming that Zhongbang Company did not deliver the machine tools according to the agreed deadline, and also violated the contract by selling the machine tools that should have been sold to the Third Machine Tool Factory to outsiders for profit, and that some of the machine tools delivered to the Third Machine Tool Factory were not qualified. Therefore, we request the court to order: 1. Zhongbang Company shall pay a penalty of 2421000 yuan for failing to deliver 155 lathes as per the contract order; 2. Zhongbang Company shall pay a penalty of 3230000 yuan for unauthorized sales of lathes; 3. Return 55 unqualified lathes from Zhongbang Company, with a total refund amount of 3690275 yuan; 4. Zhongbang Company paid 70150 yuan for other losses caused by returning the lathe, and 80972.85 yuan for after-sales service fees of the lathe; 5. Zhongbang Company paid a rental fee of 2830,00 yuan for the venue and equipment, and 472768 yuan for the lathe mold.

（2） Judgment results

After accepting two cases, the People's Court of Songjiang District in Shanghai organized mediation between the two parties in accordance with Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: "The People's Court shall, based on the principle of voluntary participation of the parties, distinguish right from wrong and conduct mediation on the basis of clear facts. For the payment part, both parties voluntarily reached a mediation agreement under the auspices of the court: firstly, to terminate the framework agreement and designated acquisition agreement signed between Zhongbang Company and Third Machine Tool Factory; 2、 Before December 30, 2012, Zhongbang Company returned 167 processing rental equipment and supporting special tools, drawings and technical documents to Third Machine Tool Factory (see the list of rental equipment for details); 3、 The Third Machine Tool Factory repaid Zhongbang Company with a payment of 2429661.97 yuan before December 30, 2012; 4、 The liability for breach of contract between the two parties shall be negotiated and resolved separately, or a separate lawsuit may be filed. Regarding the handling of the penalty for breach of contract, both parties later reconciled and withdrew the lawsuit, without holding each other accountable for breach of contract. According to Article 97 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that "if an agreement is reached through mediation, the people's court shall produce a mediation agreement", the court has produced a civil mediation agreement (2011) Songmin'er (Shang) Chu Zi No. 2077. For the portion of liquidated damages, both parties have reached a settlement and withdrawn the original and counterclaims in the (2013) Songmin'er (Shang) Chu Zi No. 2435 case, without holding each other accountable for breach of contract.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case where the people's court uses mediation to handle disputes over enterprise restructuring. Enterprise restructuring is an economic phenomenon during a specific historical period in China, with strong policy implications and often involving employee resettlement issues. For disputes over enterprise restructuring, it is necessary to fully consider the strong policy nature of enterprise restructuring while adhering to the principle of legal trial. We should be adept at using mediation methods to effectively resolve disputes and ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of various ownership entities are not infringed upon. The sales contract in this case is actually one of the restructuring contents of the Third Machine Tool Factory: The Third Machine Tool Factory hopes to divest its business through the sales contract, contract the lower profit margin business to Zhongbang Company, and ask Zhongbang Company to help settle employees; Zhongbang Company hopes that the Third Machine Tool Factory will bring it orders and potential market opportunities. If there are no market fluctuations, there will indeed be a win-win outcome. However, in the actual production and operation process, the prices of raw materials have continued to rise, leading to a significant increase in production costs for Zhongbang Company, causing operational difficulties. Communication between Zhongbang Company and the Third Machine Tool Factory on how to adjust the purchase price after the price increase was unsuccessful, resulting in disputes. The court, on the voluntary basis of the parties involved, divided the case into separate cases and first resolved the dispute over the payment of goods between the two parties through mediation, allowing Zhongbang Company to receive the due payment in a timely manner and maintaining the normal production and operation of private enterprises. For the disputed breach of contract damages and counterclaims between the two parties, the court found through court review and on-site inspection that both parties had breached each other's contract, and declared their interests to both parties. Ultimately, after weighing the pros and cons, both parties reached an out of case settlement without holding each other accountable, and both parties withdrew their litigation requests. The dispute involved in this case has significant contradictions between both parties, as well as the issue of employee resettlement. Poor handling can easily lead to social conflicts. In the end, the case was resolved through mediation and withdrawal, and was successfully executed. The case was truly resolved, achieving good legal and social effects.

10、 Case of Lease Contract Dispute between Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Business Department in Haimen City and Shanghai Sales Branch of China National Petroleum Corporation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On August 19, 2010, the private enterprise Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Business Department of Haimen City (hereinafter referred to as Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department) signed a "Gas Station Asset and Operating Rights Lease Contract" with China National Petroleum Corporation Shanghai Sales Branch (hereinafter referred to as China National Petroleum Corporation Shanghai Branch), in which China National Petroleum Corporation Shanghai Branch leases a certain gas station asset and overall operating rights from Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department; The lease term is 15 years, calculated from the date of handover of the gas station. The rent for the first two years is 230000 yuan per year, and for the third year, it is 180000 yuan per year. After the contract was signed, both parties completed the handover procedures on September 1, 2010. The gas station was managed and operated by China Petroleum Shanghai Branch, but due to the inability to change the corresponding certificates, China Petroleum Shanghai Branch did not pay the rent on schedule. Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting an order for CNPC Shanghai Branch to pay rent and breach of contract damages. China Petroleum Shanghai Branch counterclaimed that due to the fact that the Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department was not restructured into a corporate enterprise and did not agree to change its business license, it was unable to operate the gas station normally and legally, and the purpose of the contract could not be achieved. China Petroleum Shanghai Branch has the right to demand the termination of the contract, request a decree to terminate the "Gas Station Asset and Operating Rights Lease Contract", and demand that the Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department compensate for the loss of 35403803 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Pudong New Area in Shanghai held in the first instance that the "Gas Station Asset and Operating Rights Lease Contract" signed between Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department and PetroChina Shanghai Branch was legal and valid. As a subsidiary of a well-known enterprise in the industry, PetroChina Shanghai Branch has the ability and conditions to make reasonable judgments on commercial risks, and should have a full understanding of the potential losses caused by business decision-making errors. At the time of signing the contract, both parties had communication and negotiation, and considered and agreed on possible situations where the certificate could not be changed during the performance of the contract, as well as solutions. After the contract was signed, both parties completed the handover procedures, and the Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department also fulfilled the obligation of assistance. In the case where the certificate cannot be changed, both parties did not reach a supplementary agreement, and the risk of the contract purpose not being realized caused by this should not be attributed to the Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department. According to Article 97 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that "after the termination of the contract, if the performance has not yet been fulfilled, the performance shall be terminated; if the performance has already been fulfilled, the parties may demand restoration of the original state, take other remedial measures, and have the right to demand compensation for losses", the judgment is as follows: firstly, terminate the "Gas Station Asset and Operating Rights Lease Contract"; 2、 PetroChina Shanghai Branch shall pay the rent of Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department within ten days from the effective date of the judgment; 3、 PetroChina Shanghai Branch shall pay a penalty for delayed payment to Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department within ten days from the effective date of the judgment; 4、 PetroChina Shanghai Branch shall pay a breach of contract penalty of 560000 yuan to Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department within ten days from the effective date of the judgment; 5、 Reject other counterclaim requests from PetroChina Shanghai Branch. After PetroChina Shanghai Branch appealed, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case for the People's Court to try leasing contract disputes between large state-owned enterprises and non-public enterprises in accordance with the law. The focus of the dispute in this case is how to determine the respective responsibilities of Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department and PetroChina Shanghai Branch when the corresponding certificates of the gas station cannot be changed. As a large state-owned enterprise, PetroChina Shanghai Branch has the ability and conditions to make reasonable judgments and recognition of commercial risks that may not be able to change the gas station license. Therefore, when the contract only imposes an obligation on Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department to assist in handling and provide necessary materials, PetroChina Shanghai Branch cannot attribute the inability to achieve the contract purpose due to the failure to change the certificate to Haiyong Agricultural Machinery Department, but should bear the consequences of this commercial risk on its own. The parties involved in this case not only have different ownership properties, but also have significant differences in market position and economic strength. The people's court strictly adheres to the principle of equal protection, comprehensively considers the contracting ability and industry experience of both parties to the contract, accurately distinguishes commercial risks and subjective faults in accordance with the law, determines the reasons and consequences for the inability to achieve the purpose of the contract, and fairly protects the legitimate rights and interests of subjects of different scales, regions, and ownership in accordance with the law.