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