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.