案情简介

徐某原是某某村（现某某实业总公司）村民，从小就患有痴呆症，系无民事行为能力人。1993年4月25日，其所在的某某村土地被台州椒江金海商城征用，某某村未经徐某及其家人同意，将其的名字作为一次性领取劳力安置费进行安置的对象上报给原椒江劳动人事局（现台州市椒江区人事劳动社会保障局，下称劳动局）。1994年1月26日，徐某及其家人在不知情的情况下与劳动局签订了协议。当时，徐某及其家人根本不知道已签订了一次性领取安置费及今后自谋职业的事情。2004年12月，其家人才知道徐某已签订了上述协议，并多次与劳动局交涉，但对方以各种理由推托。遂于2004年4月向台州市椒江区人民法院起诉，要求确认1994年1月26日与劳动局签订的协议无效。并向法院提交司法医学鉴定书、某某村证明、文件检验鉴定书各一份作为证据。

劳动局辩称：一是徐某与劳动局签订劳动力安置费补偿协议合法有效；二是公证书以及公证机关的档案证明协议是由其父及姐夫代为签订，并经公证；三是主张的权利已超过法定二年的诉讼时效。要求法院驳回徐某的诉讼请求。也向法院提交公证申请表、公证书各一份作为证据。

一审败诉

一审法院在判决论证时认为：对于徐某提供的三份证据，劳动局对其真实性无异议，但认为该些证据不能证明11年前徐某已是痴呆。根据鉴定结论，徐某的痴呆症极重度精神发育迟滞引起，其提供的证据可以作为本案定案依据。对于劳动局提供的证据，徐某的代理人提出对公证申请表中的徐某法定代理人的签名进行笔迹鉴定，结论为不是其法定代理人所签，故不能作为本案定案依据。对于公证书（含协议书）是在公证申请表的基础上公证，所以不能作为定案依据。但对于本案讼争的协议书，徐某代理人在庭审中陈述该协议书与10000元人民币是送到徐某法定代理人处，故该协议可以作为定案的依据。徐某的法定代理人以自己的行为认可了该协议内容，故驳回徐某的诉讼请求。徐某不服，向台州市中级人民法院提出上诉，理由是事实不清、要求改判。台州市中级人民法院于2006年6月6日公开开庭审理后作出撤销一审判决，发回重审的裁定。

律师评析

周海龙律师作为徐某无效合同再审诉讼程序的代理人，对本案的案卷进行仔细审阅后认为：该诉争协议书在某种意义上是一份行政合同，本应通过行政诉讼来救济，现法院既然作为一种民事行为来受理，人民法院也应当依据法律法规和参照合法有效的规章以及其他规范性文件，对该协议的合法性进行审查。在协议合法的前提下，以协议的约定作为审查双方行为的补充依据，以确认协议无效。针对本案，律师经法理分析后认为，此安置协议是无效的，理由如下：

一是签订安置协议书的主体不合法。《民法通则》第58条规定了无民事行为能力人实施的行为无效。无效的民事行为，从行为开始起就没有法律约束力。所以，徐某与劳动局签订的安置协议自始无效。

二是安置协议书的内容违反法律法规。现代汉语词典对“劳力”的解释有两种：其一是体力劳动时所用的力气；其二是有劳动能力的人。劳动者必须具有劳动权利能力和劳动行为能力。公民在实现劳动权利的时候，要受到公民劳动能力的制约。如果没有劳动能力，当然也就无法实现劳动权利。

劳动局与徐某签订协议书,是劳动局履行职责的行为，从内容中“乙方在办妥全部领款手续、领取劳力安置费，劳动部门不再办理招工手续。乙方自谋职业……”可以得出，签订的协议书中一次性领取劳力安置费是对有劳动能力的人而言。

与没有劳动能力的人签订一次性领取劳力安置费协议书，不符合《中华人民共和国土地管理法》（1988年12月29日第七届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第五次会议修正）第30条之规定，“国家建设征用土地的各项补偿费和安置补助费，除被征用土地上属于个人的附着物和青苗的补偿费付给本人外，由被征地单位用于发展生产和安排因土地被征用而造成的多余劳动力的就业和不能就业人员的生活补助，不得移作他用，任何单位和个人不得占用。”及当时《浙江省土地管理实施办法》（1989年3月12日浙江省七届人民代表大会常务委员会第八次会议修正） 第三章第26条之规定，“被征地单位收取的土地补偿费、安置补助费，由被征地单位用于发展生产、安排因土地被征用而出现的多余劳动力的就业和不能就业人员的生活补助，不得私分或移作他用。土地管理部门、乡（镇）人民政府和银行负责监督。对于农民承包的土地被征用后，村民委员会或农业集体经济组织，不能调剂承包地，本人自愿并确有能力从事其他生产经营，不需要征地单位和乡（镇）村安排其就业的，经被征地单位同意，也可以将该土地的安置补助费支付给被征地后自愿从事其他生产经营的农户。”而徐某患有重度精神发育迟滞，认知能力完全丧失，完全不能保护自己的合法权益，哪来有能力从事生产经营、自谋职业。

《中华人民共和国合同法》第52条规定对合同无效情形作了违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定的的无效。《中华人民共和国民法通则》第58条也对无效民事行为作了违反法律或者社会公共利益的无效。

三是起诉没有超过法定诉讼时效期间。

《中华人民共和国民法通则》规定的两年的诉讼时效期间适用于债权请求权，不适用于形成权。而徐某诉劳动局确认协议无效的请求属于形成权之诉，不应受两年诉讼时效的限制。合同无效系自始无效，单纯的时间经过不能改变无效合同的违法性。

终判无效

再审法院认为，徐某及其近亲属未与被告签订安置协议，其法定代理人收取了安置协议书及10000元人民币，事实清楚。虽然徐某的法定代理人主张此钱系青苗补助费，但未提供同期某某村发放青苗补助费的依据，且金额又与安置协议所约定的安置金额一致，故应推定徐某的法定代理人以自己的行为接受并认可了该安置协议书。

根据1988年12月29日第七界全国人民代表大会常务委员会第五次会议修正《中华人民共和国土地管理法》第30条、第31条规定以及浙江省人大常务委员会根据此法律于1989年3月12日修正的《浙江省土地管理实施办法》第26条规定，国家建设征用土地的土地补偿费、安置补助费，由被征地单位用于发展生产、安排因土地被征用而出现的多余劳动力的就业和不能就业人员的生活补助，不得私分或移作他用。本人自愿并确有能力从事其他生产经营，不需要征地单位和乡（镇）村安排其就业的，经被征地单位同意，也可以将该土地的安置补助费支付给被征地后自愿从事其他生产经营的农户。由此可见，有劳动能力的被征地农民才属于一次性货币安置对象，不能就业的人员应由被征地单位利用土地补偿费对其进行生活补助。徐某属无民事行为人，生活不能自理，依照法律法规的规定，应属于所在联谊村进行生活补助的对象。故本案讼争的协议违反了法律法规的规定，应属无效。

关于徐某起诉是否超过诉讼时效的问题。民事行为效力的认定，实质是国家公权力对民事行为进行干预。有权确认行为是否有效的主体只能是人民法院和仲裁机构，当事人是不享有确认行为无效的法定权利。况且无效的民事行为不因时间的长短而改变其自始无效的法律后果。故当事人请求确认无效，不应受诉讼时效期间的限制。2007年3月22日，法院判决徐某与劳动局签订的安置协议无效。劳动局未在规定期限内提出上诉，该判决生效。

本案的真实情况，在90年代初，壹万元劳力安置费还是比较可观的。当时劳动局出于对当事人徐某的同情，才与其签订了一次性领取安置费的协议。但是同情不等于法律，行政机关在实施此类行为时，还是应该依法办事，以免类似诉讼案件的再次发生。

Brief Introduction to the Case

Xu was originally a villager of a certain village (now known as a certain industrial company), suffering from dementia from a young age, and is a person without civil capacity. On April 25, 1993, the land of a certain village where he was located was requisitioned by the Jiaojiang Jinhai Shopping Mall in Taizhou. Without the consent of Xu and his family, the village reported his name as the object of one-time labor resettlement fees to the original Jiaojiang Labor and Personnel Bureau (now known as the Labor and Social Security Bureau of Jiaojiang District, Taizhou City, hereinafter referred to as the Labor Bureau). On January 26, 1994, Xu and his family signed an agreement with the Labor Bureau without their knowledge. At that time, Xu and his family had no idea that they had signed a one-time agreement to receive resettlement fees and seek self-employment in the future. In December 2004, his family only found out that Xu had signed the aforementioned agreement and had repeatedly negotiated with the Labor Bureau, but the other party refused to accept it for various reasons. In April 2004, he filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Jiaojiang District, Taizhou City, requesting confirmation that the agreement signed with the Labor Bureau on January 26, 1994 was invalid. And submit one judicial medical appraisal certificate, one village certificate, and one document inspection appraisal certificate to the court as evidence.

The Labor Bureau argues that: firstly, Xu signed a legal and effective labor resettlement compensation agreement with the Labor Bureau; The second is that the notarization certificate and the notarization agency's file proof agreement were signed by their father and brother-in-law on their behalf and notarized; The third is that the claimed rights have exceeded the statutory statute of limitations for two years. Requesting the court to dismiss Xu's lawsuit request. Also submit one notarization application form and one notarization certificate to the court as evidence.

First instance lost

The first instance court held that the Labor Bureau had no objection to the authenticity of the three pieces of evidence provided by Xu, but believed that these pieces of evidence could not prove that Xu had dementia 11 years ago. According to the appraisal conclusion, Xu's dementia is caused by extremely severe mental retardation, and the evidence provided by him can serve as the basis for finalizing this case. For the evidence provided by the Labor Bureau, Xu's agent proposed to conduct handwriting verification on the signature of Xu's legal representative in the notarization application form, and the conclusion is that it was not signed by his legal representative, so it cannot be used as the basis for finalizing this case. The notarization certificate (including the agreement) is based on the notarization application form, so it cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case. However, regarding the agreement regarding the dispute in this case, Mr. Xu's representative stated in the trial that the agreement and RMB 10000 were delivered to Mr. Xu's legal representative, so this agreement can serve as the basis for finalizing the case. Xu's legal representative recognized the content of the agreement based on his own actions, therefore rejecting Xu's lawsuit request. Xu was dissatisfied and appealed to the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court, citing unclear facts and requesting a change of judgment. After a public hearing on June 6, 2006, the Intermediate People's Court of Taizhou City made a decision to revoke the first instance judgment and remand the case for retrial.

Lawyer Evaluation

Lawyer Zhou Hailong, as the agent for the retrial proceedings of Xu's invalid contract, carefully reviewed the case file and concluded that the dispute agreement is in a sense an administrative contract that should have been remedied through administrative litigation. Since the court accepts it as a civil act, the people's court should also follow laws and regulations, refer to legal and effective rules and other normative documents, Review the legality of this agreement. On the premise of legality of the agreement, the agreement shall be used as a supplementary basis for reviewing the actions of both parties to confirm the invalidity of the agreement. In response to this case, the lawyer, after legal analysis, believes that this placement agreement is invalid for the following reasons:

One is that the subject who signed the resettlement agreement is illegal. Article 58 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that acts committed by persons without civil capacity are invalid. An invalid civil act has no legal binding force from the beginning of the act. Therefore, the resettlement agreement signed between Xu and the Labor Bureau is invalid from the beginning.

The second is that the content of the resettlement agreement violates laws and regulations. There are two interpretations of "labor" in modern Chinese dictionaries: one is the strength used during physical labor; The second is people with the ability to work. Workers must have the ability to work rights and the ability to work behavior. When citizens realize their labor rights, they must be constrained by their labor ability. If there is no ability to work, of course, labor rights cannot be realized.

The signing of an agreement between the Labor Bureau and Xu is an act of the Labor Bureau to fulfill its responsibilities. From the content, it can be concluded that "Party B has completed all the payment procedures and received labor resettlement fees, and the labor department will no longer handle recruitment procedures. Party B seeks employment on his own..." It can be concluded that the one-time payment of labor resettlement fees in the signed agreement is for individuals with labor ability.

The signing of a one-time agreement for receiving labor resettlement fees with a person without the ability to work does not comply with the provisions of Article 30 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (as amended at the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People's Congress on December 29, 1988), The various compensation fees and resettlement subsidies for land requisitioned for national construction, except for the compensation fees for personal attachments and young crops on the requisitioned land, shall be used by the requisitioned unit to develop production and arrange for the employment of surplus labor force caused by land requisition, as well as the living subsidies for unemployed personnel. They shall not be used for other purposes, and no unit or individual shall occupy them (Revised at the 8th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Seventh People's Congress of Zhejiang Province on March 12, 1989) Chapter 3, Article 26, The land compensation fees and resettlement subsidies collected by the requisitioned unit shall be used by the requisitioned unit to develop production, arrange employment for surplus labor force caused by land requisition, and provide living subsidies for unemployed individuals. They shall not be privately divided or transferred for other purposes. Land management departments, townships (towns) The people's government and banks are responsible for supervision. After the land contracted by farmers is requisitioned, the village committee or agricultural collective economic organization cannot adjust the contracted land. If the person voluntarily and has the ability to engage in other production and operation, and does not need to be arranged for employment by the land acquisition unit or township (town) village, with the consent of the land acquisition unit, the resettlement subsidy for the land can also be paid to farmers who voluntarily engage in other production and operation after the land acquisition However, Xu suffers from severe mental retardation, complete loss of cognitive ability, and is unable to protect his legitimate rights and interests. How could he have the ability to engage in production and business operations or seek employment on his own.

Article 52 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the invalidity of contracts that violate mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. Article 58 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China also makes invalid civil acts that violate the law or social public interests invalid.

Thirdly, the prosecution did not exceed the statutory statute of limitations.

The two-year statute of limitations period stipulated in the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China applies to the right to claim creditor's rights and does not apply to the right to form. The request of Xu to confirm the invalidity of the agreement by the Labor Bureau is a right of formation lawsuit and should not be subject to the limitation of a two-year statute of limitations. The invalidity of a contract is from the beginning, and the mere passage of time cannot change the illegality of the invalid contract.

Final judgment invalid

The retrial court held that Xu and his close relatives did not sign a resettlement agreement with the defendant, and his legal representative received the resettlement agreement and 10000 RMB, which is clear. Although Xu's legal representative claimed that the money was a subsidy for young crops, he did not provide a basis for the village to distribute the subsidy for young crops during the same period, and the amount was consistent with the resettlement amount agreed in the resettlement agreement. Therefore, it should be presumed that Xu's legal representative accepted and recognized the resettlement agreement through his own actions.

According to the provisions of Article 30 and Article 31 of the Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China, as amended by the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People's Congress on December 29, 1988, and Article 26 of the Implementation Measures for Land Management in Zhejiang Province, as amended by the Standing Committee of the Zhejiang Provincial People's Congress on March 12, 1989, the land compensation fees and resettlement subsidies for national construction land acquisition shall be used by the requisitioned units for the development of production Arrange for the employment of surplus labor force and living subsidies for those who cannot be employed due to land acquisition, and shall not be privately distributed or transferred for other purposes. If I voluntarily and truly have the ability to engage in other production and business operations, and do not require employment arrangements from the land acquisition unit or township/village, with the consent of the land acquisition unit, I can also pay the resettlement subsidy for the land to farmers who voluntarily engage in other production and business operations after the land acquisition. From this, it can be seen that only farmers who have the ability to work are eligible for one-time monetary resettlement, and those who cannot find employment should be provided with living subsidies by the land acquisition unit using land compensation fees. Xu is a non civil actor who cannot take care of his own life. According to laws and regulations, he should be the subject of living subsidies in his hometown, Lianyi Village. Therefore, the agreement in this case violates the provisions of laws and regulations, and should be considered invalid.

Regarding the issue of whether Xu's lawsuit has exceeded the statute of limitations. The determination of the effectiveness of civil acts is essentially the intervention of state public power in civil acts. The subjects with the right to confirm the validity of the act can only be the people's court and arbitration institution, and the parties do not have the legal right to confirm the invalidity of the act. Moreover, invalid civil acts do not change the legal consequences of their initial invalidity due to the length of time. Therefore, the parties' request for confirmation of invalidity should not be limited by the statute of limitations period. On March 22, 2007, the court ruled that the resettlement agreement signed between Xu and the Labor Bureau was invalid. If the Labor Bureau fails to file an appeal within the specified time limit, the judgment will take effect.

The true situation of this case is that in the early 1990s, the labor resettlement fee of 10000 yuan was quite considerable. At that time, the Labor Bureau signed an agreement with Xu, out of sympathy for the party involved, to receive a one-time resettlement fee. However, sympathy is not equal to the law. When implementing such actions, administrative agencies should still act in accordance with the law to prevent similar litigation cases from happening again.