Theme Education Activity on "Promoting Justice and Building Core Values through Openness"

Typical Cases of Contract Disputes

catalogue

1. Chongqing Heavy Rail Logistics Co., Ltd. v. Wushan County Longxiang Trading Co., Ltd. and Hejiang County Shanshan Trading Co., Ltd. in the dispute over the sales contract

2. Chen v. China Ping An Life Insurance Co., Ltd. Leshan Center Branch Personal Insurance Contract Dispute Case

3. Liu Jiahua v. Shandong Feixian Yike Shengyuan Food Co., Ltd. Breeding Contract Dispute Case

4. "Xinhua" Trademark Dispute Case

5. Contract dispute case between Zou Keyou and Zhang Shouzhong

6. Wang Fengming v. Sun Yuanli and Sun Ziming over the Dispute over the Sales Contract

7. Hu Baiqing v. Linyi Yixing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Housing Sales Contract Dispute Case

8. Ran and Zhang sued Chongqing Real Estate Co., Ltd. for a dispute over the housing sales contract

9. Zheng v. Ran Civil Loan Dispute Case

10. Dispute Case of Zhou v. Chongqing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. on House Purchase and Sale Contract

11. Case of Wang and others suing the defendant, a work injury insurance management office in a certain district of Chongqing, and a third party, a coal mining company in Chongqing, for not fulfilling administrative payment obligations

12. Li and Wang v. Chen in the Civil Loan Dispute Case

13. Zheng v. Lei, Liu, and Chongqing Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. Private Loan Dispute Case

14. Li sued Duan for a civil loan dispute

15. Ma v. Zhang Civil Loan Dispute Case

16. Wang Lei v. Fushun Lehuo Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Commercial Housing Sales Contract Dispute Case

17. Dispute over Sales Contract between You and Hongda Company

18. Huang Moulou v. Li Mou Civil Loan Dispute Case

19. Yan Zuochen and Li Qiuxia v. Beijing China International Travel Service Co., Ltd. Tourism Contract Dispute Case

1、 Chongqing Heavy Rail Logistics Co., Ltd. v. Wushan County Longxiang Trading Co., Ltd. and Hejiang County Shanshan Trading Co., Ltd. Dispute over the Sales Contract

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 1, 2013, the plaintiff Chongqing Heavy Rail Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Heavy Rail Logistics Company) signed the "Coal Purchase and Sales Contract" and the "Coal Sales Contract" with the defendant Wushan County Longxiang Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Longxiang Company) and the defendant Hejiang County Shanshan Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanshan Company), respectively. At the same time, the three parties also signed the "Supplementary Agreement". The aforementioned three contracts and agreements stipulate that Longxiang Company will sell coal to Heavy Rail Logistics Company, and Heavy Rail Logistics Company will sell coal to Shanshan Company. The contract is valid from December 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014. The delivery method is waterway transportation, and the coal sold by Longxiang Company to Heavy Rail Logistics Company is directly sold to Shanshan Company upon arrival at the port. Chongqing Logistics Company entrusts Shanshan Company to conduct quality and quantity inspection of the coal. Heavy Rail Logistics Company, Longxiang Company, and Shanshan Company have also agreed that Longxiang Company will not collect payment from Heavy Rail Logistics Company until they receive payment from Shanshan Company. If Shanshan Company refuses or delays payment, Longxiang Company waives the requirement for Heavy Rail Logistics Company to pay part or all of the payment. After the contract was signed, the defendant Longxiang Company issued 9 copies of the "Water Cargo Waybill" and 32 copies of value-added tax invoices (totaling 30942450 yuan) to the plaintiff Heavy Rail Logistics Company, and the defendant Shanshan Company also issued 5 copies of the "Receipt Certificate" to the plaintiff Heavy Rail Logistics Company. According to the above cargo waybills, invoices, and receipts, a total of 48414.1 tons of coal transactions occurred between the plaintiff and the two defendants. According to the contract, the defendant Shanshan Company shall pay the corresponding payment to the plaintiff Heavy Rail Logistics Company, and Heavy Rail Logistics Company shall also pay the agreed price to the defendant Longxiang Company. In fact, the coal sales contract and supplementary agreement signed by the plaintiff and defendant have not been actually fulfilled, and there has been no real coal transaction between the relevant parties, nor has there been any payment for the relevant goods. The evidence in the case confirms that at the time of signing the contract, the legal representatives of the defendant Longxiang Company and the defendant Shanshan Company were both Qiu Xiang. Shanshan Company submitted a business license with Chen Zhuzeng as the legal representative, concealing the fact that both the legal representatives of the company and Longxiang Company were Qiu Xiang. Afterwards, Qiu Xiang forged 9 freight bills and instructed his staff to falsely issue 32 value-added tax invoices and 5 receipt certificates and hand them over to Heavy Rail Logistics Company, Fiction of the entire coal transaction. The defendant Longxiang Company fabricated a coal transaction based on the above contract, forming a debt of 30942450 yuan against the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the Chengdu Railway Intermediate People's Court on the grounds that the two defendants colluded maliciously and fraudulently caused the plaintiff to sign relevant contracts against their true intentions. They requested a judgment to revoke the "Coal Purchase and Sale Contract" signed between the plaintiff and the defendant Longxiang Company on December 1, 2013, the "Coal Purchase and Sale Contract" signed with the defendant Shanshan Company, and the "Supplementary Agreement" signed with the two defendants.

（2） Judgment results

The Chengdu Railway Intermediate People's Court believes that the defendants Longxiang Company and Shanshan Company intentionally concealed the true situation that their legal representatives were both Qiu Xiang, causing Heavy Rail Logistics Company to sign the aforementioned contract and agreement, and fabricated the non-existent coal transaction facts through means such as forging cargo waybills, receiving certificates, and falsely issuing value-added tax invoices. Article 68 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 stipulates that "if one party intentionally informs the other party of a false situation or intentionally conceals the true situation, inducing the other party to make a wrong expression of intention, it can be deemed as fraudulent behavior." The actions of Longxiang Company and Shanshan Company are consistent with this provision and should be deemed as fraudulent behavior. According to Article 54 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, if one party fraudulently causes the other party to enter into a contract contrary to their true intentions, the aggrieved party has the right to request cancellation. Heavy Rail Logistics Company has decided to cancel the Coal Purchase and Sales Contract signed with Longxiang Company on December 1, 2013 The lawsuit of the Coal Purchase and Sale Contract signed with Shanshan Company and the Supplementary Agreement signed by the three parties complies with legal provisions and is supported. In accordance with Article 54 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 68 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, the court has ruled to revoke the Coal Purchase and Sales Contract signed between Chongqing Heavy Rail Logistics Co., Ltd. and Wushan County Longxiang Trading Co., Ltd. on December 1, 2013 The Coal Sales Contract signed with Hejiang County Shanshan Trading Co., Ltd. and the Supplementary Agreement signed by the three parties.

（3） Typical significance

The principle of good faith is not only a fundamental principle of contract law, but also a fundamental principle of the entire civil activity. In market economy activities, market entities should not deceive or deceive in their behavior, respect the interests of others, ensure that all parties involved in the contract relationship can obtain their own interests, and not harm the interests of society and third parties, in order to better promote the healthy development of the market economy. The honesty and trustworthiness of market entities provide them with a universal trust, which is one of the necessary resources for market exchanges. If one party to the contract fails to maintain integrity, violates the contract agreement, or even uses fraudulent means to harm the interests of the other party or cause harm to society or third parties, ultimately disrupting the order of market transactions and affecting the healthy development of the entire market economic activity.

In this case, the defendants Longxiang Company and Shanshan Company were actually controlled by the same person, but intentionally concealed the true situation when signing the contract with the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to sign the contract and agreement with the two companies. They also fabricated the non-existent coal transaction facts by forging freight bills, proof of receipt, and issuing value-added tax invoices. The defendant Longxiang Company fabricated a coal transaction based on the above contract, forming a debt of over 30 million yuan against the plaintiff. As a result, they went to the bank to handle factoring business and transferred this accounts receivable to the bank for financing, which may put the plaintiff at risk of being pursued by the bank, and the bank may also be at risk of bad debts in factoring business. The two defendants did not speak of honesty and credibility, and their behavior fully conforms to the determination of contract fraud. According to Article 54 of the Contract Law, the plaintiff's request to revoke the contract has been supported by the court. The verdict of this case reflects a good social effect and highlights the important role of the court in sanctioning breach of contract, combating fraud, and maintaining social integrity.

2、 Chen v. China Ping An Life Insurance Co., Ltd. Leshan Center Branch Personal Insurance Contract Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Chen's father, Chen Moukang, was admitted for treatment on August 10, 2010 due to adenocarcinoma of the right lung. He was discharged after his condition stabilized on August 24, 2010. On August 25, 2010, Chen insured Chen Moukang against death and additional major illness insurance for 80000 yuan at the defendant's office. Chen and Chen Kang both checked "No" in the "Inquiry Items" column for medical history, hospitalization examination, and treatment experience. Both parties signed to confirm the authenticity of their health, financial, and other information in the application form, and confirmed that the defendant and their agents had provided insurance clauses, clearly explaining the clauses for exempting the insurer from liability and rescuing the contract. Both parties confirm that the contract will take effect from September 2, 2010. Articles 7.1 and 7.2 of the contract stipulate the insurer's obligation to clearly explain, the policyholder's obligation to truthfully disclose, and the insurer's right to terminate the contract.

From September 6, 2010 to June 6, 2012, Chen Moukang was admitted to the hospital for treatment of right lung adenocarcinoma 9 times. On September 11, 2012, Chen Moukang applied to the defendant for compensation for major illness insurance based on his hospitalization medical records on March 28, 2012. After investigation, the insurance company found that Chen Moukang was admitted to the hospital for treatment on March 10, 2010, and was confirmed to have "hepatitis, liver cirrhosis, and primary liver cancer are not excluded." Therefore, on September 17, 2012, the defendant served a notice to the plaintiff to terminate the insurance contract and refuse compensation on the grounds that Chen Moukang had health conditions that affected the company's underwriting decision before applying for insurance, but did not inform the plaintiff in writing. Chen Moukang and Chen Moukang filed a lawsuit on October 24, 2012, ordering the defendant to continue fulfilling the insurance contract and paying a major illness insurance benefit of 30000 yuan. Later, they applied for withdrawal in the second instance, and the second instance court ruled to withdraw the lawsuit on December 18, 2012. From March 11 to March 14, 2014, Chen Moukang was once again admitted for treatment for right lung adenocarcinoma. His discharge diagnosis was right lung adenocarcinoma with multiple systemic metastases (stage IV, including bone metastasis). On March 24, 2014, Chen Moukang died of illness. The plaintiff Chen filed a lawsuit in court, requesting the defendant to pay Chen Moukang's death insurance compensation of 80000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The court of first instance held that the policyholder Chen, who had improved after being hospitalized for right lung adenocarcinoma, had insured the defendant the day after his discharge. During the insurance process, the policyholder intentionally concealed the insured Chen's condition of right lung adenocarcinoma, violating the obligation of truthful disclosure. According to Article 16 (2) of the Insurance Law, the insurer has the right to terminate the contract in accordance with the law. Due to the aforementioned reasons for termination occurring at the time of signing the insurance contract, and during the period from September 6, 2010 to June 6, 2012, which was two years after the contract was established, Chen Moukang was admitted to the hospital for treatment for right lung adenocarcinoma nine times. However, two years after the contract was established, he applied to the defendant for compensation for major illness insurance based on his hospitalization medical records on March 28, 2012. He also requested the defendant to pay a death insurance benefit of 80000 yuan after Chen Moukang died of right lung adenocarcinoma, Its subjective malice is obvious, and this situation does not fall within the scope of application of Article 16 (3) of the Insurance Law. The plaintiff shall not invoke this clause to raise a defense. The defendant became aware of the reason for termination from September 11, 2012, when the plaintiff applied for compensation, and served a written notice to the plaintiff on September 17, 2012 to refuse payment and terminate the contract. The plaintiff did not raise an objection within the three-month objection period. According to Article 96 (1) of the Contract Law, the contract between the two parties was terminated on September 17, 2012. The plaintiff's request for the defendant to pay an insurance premium of 80000 yuan on the grounds of Chen's death due to illness on March 24, 2014 has no legal basis, and the judgment rejects the plaintiff's request.

The court of second instance held that the appellant claimed that according to Article 16 (3) of the Insurance Law, the insurance company cannot terminate the contract. The court believes that from Article 16 (3) of the Insurance Law, "the insurer shall not terminate the contract for more than two years from the date of its establishment." The premise for the insurer to not terminate the contract is that a new insurance accident occurs two years from the date of its establishment. In this case, the insurance accident occurred at the time of the establishment of the insurance contract, which does not fall within the scope of the aforementioned provisions, and the insurer still has the right to terminate. The defense made by the insured and beneficiary in accordance with Article 16 (3) of the Insurance Law is a paraphrasing of this provision and is not supported. In addition, the defendant issued a notice of termination on September 17, 2012, while the plaintiff did not raise any objections within three months. The contract between the two parties was terminated on September 17, 2012, and the appellant filed a lawsuit in March 2014, and their claim should not be supported. Therefore, the judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

In this case, the issue of whether the policyholder did not truthfully inform the policyholder that an insurance accident had occurred before the application, and requested compensation two years after the establishment of the insurance contract, should be supported or not, is still a legal gap. If the provisions of Article 16 of the Insurance Law are applied mechanically, it will indirectly encourage malicious insurance fraud. Therefore, this case made a judgment after balancing the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the policyholder and maintaining good insurance order, providing experience for the handling of similar cases.

2. Insurance contracts are luck contracts that have uncertainty about whether insurance accidents will occur in the future. However, if an insured accident has occurred before the establishment of the insurance contract and is subsequently insured, it has subjective malice and is a dishonest act of malicious deception and violates the legal principles of the insurance contract. At this time, the limit of the non defensible period should not be mechanically adhered to, and the insurance company should be granted the right to terminate, and the two-year non defensible period is applicable if a new insurance accident occurs two years after the establishment of the insurance contract, Therefore, if an insurance accident has occurred before the establishment of the insurance contract, the insurance company should not compensate. The verdict in this case plays a positive role in curbing the dishonest behavior of malicious insurance and delaying claims settlement, regulating insurance order, and preventing the abuse of insurance benefits.

3、 Liu Jiahua v. Shandong Feixian Yike Shengyuan Food Co., Ltd. Breeding Contract Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In February 2013, the plaintiff Liu Jiahua signed a meat duck breeding and recycling contract with the defendant Yike Shengyuan Company, The settlement method stated in the contract is: "After the workshop slaughter is completed, Party B shall present a copy of their ID card, and the batch contract, breeding log, feed documents, quarantine certificate, and workshop carcass weighing form shall be settled at the company's raw material department based on the carcass yield rate. If the number of ducks delivered is less than 98% without special reasons, the company will deduct Party B's deposit proportionally and hold them responsible for breach of contract, Yike Shengyuan Company supplied meat duck seedlings to Liu Jiahua according to the contract agreement, and recycled the meat ducks raised by Liu Jiahua on March 9, 2013. When Liu Jiahua sells meat ducks to Yike Shengyuan Company, he/she shall settle with Yike Shengyuan Company by presenting the batch contract book, breeding log, feed documents, quarantine certificate, and workshop carcass weighing form. Yike Shengyuan Company shall retrieve the above-mentioned documents held by Liu Jiahua and issue three purchase settlement forms to Liu Jiahua, with the contract unit price stated on the settlement forms being 7.508.

Liu Jiahua believes that the recycling price of meat ducks is calculated based on the formula of 6.2 when the recycling price of meat ducks is settled as stipulated in the contract=[agreed in the table above] the basic unit price of recycling yuan/jin - (4 yuan/piece - signed duck seedling price [agreed in the table above]). The price of meat ducks stated in the recycling settlement form issued by Yike Shengyuan Company to Liu Jiahua is 0.3 yuan/jin less than the settlement recycling price of meat ducks as stipulated in the contract. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Lanshan District People's Court of Linyi City, claiming that the defendant should continue to pay the total underpayment of 12846 yuan for the Liu Jiahua Meat Duck purchased during the recycling of the meat duck. Yike Shengyuan Company argues that Liu Jiahua did not have the original contract and both parties had not signed a contract.

4、 Xinhua Trademark Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Shandong Xinhua Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. has the exclusive right to use the "Xinhua" trademark, while Henan Xinhua Company uses the logo with the words "Xinhua Pharmaceutical" on its website. The word "Xinhua" literally means "New China" or "Emerging China", which is related to the specific revolutionary historical background of China. It is mostly state-owned enterprises and public institutions founded by people's governments at all levels of New China, and has obvious characteristics of the times. The predecessor of Shandong Xinhua Pharmaceutical Factory was an enterprise founded by the Eighth Route Army of the Shandong Liberation Area before the founding of the People's Republic of China. It is reasonable to use Xinhua as the name of the enterprise and the trademark of the drugs produced. Shandong Xinhua Pharmaceutical Factory obtained various national honors from 1978 to 1999 and made significant innovations in some pharmaceutical technology fields. When Henan Xinhua Company applied for enterprise registration, Shandong Xinhua Pharmaceutical Factory had a high reputation in the industry.

（2） Judgment results

The court ruled that Henan Xinhua Company immediately stopped using "Xinhua" language that infringed on the exclusive right to use the trademark of Shandong Xinhua Company in its website promotion. Henan Xinhua Company immediately ceases to use enterprise names containing the word "Xinhua" and changes the enterprise name containing the word "Xinhua" to the industrial and commercial authorities within 30 days from the effective date of the judgment. Henan Xinhua Company shall compensate Shandong Xinhua Company with an economic loss of 200000 yuan within ten days of the judgment coming into effect. Henan Xinhua Company shall publish a statement on its website within 30 days after the judgment takes effect, clarifying the facts and eliminating the impact. The content needs to be approved by the court. If the judgment is not fulfilled within the time limit, the original trial court will publish the content of this judgment in relevant media, and the expenses will be borne by Henan Xinhua Company.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a case involving people's livelihood and is a typical behavior of the pharmaceutical industry's "brand name" behavior, which is closely related to the life, health and safety of the people, and is even more harmful; Increasing the protection of intellectual property rights of well-known pharmaceutical enterprises is conducive to regulating the order of drug production and sales markets, promoting conscientious competition, combating unfair competition, promoting the healthy development of the pharmaceutical industry, and thus safeguarding the physical and mental health of the people. This case belongs to a typical intellectual property dispute, involving trademark infringement and unfair competition. The judgment found that Henan Xinhua had infringed on the rights of Shandong Xinhua, and in accordance with the law, Henan Xinhua was ordered to change its name and trade name and stop the infringement.

5、 Contract Dispute Case between Zou Keyou and Zhang Shouzhong

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 29, 2003, Zou Keyou and Zhang Shouzhong signed an agreement on the transfer of a building base, which stipulated that Zhang Shouzhong would relocate and compensate for the replacement of a building base located on the East Street of Andongwei Street, Donggang District, Rizhao City (later renamed as "Andongwei Street East Street, Lanshan District, Rizhao City", hereinafter referred to as "Donggang Andongwei East Street" and "Lanshan Andongwei East Street" respectively), The transfer was made to Zou Keyou, a villager from another village, for a price of 56900 yuan. The agreement stated that the payment was to be made in full in person, and Zhang Shouzhong's fellow villager Zhou Tongtong signed the agreement as a witness. Afterwards, the building base remained idle, and Zou Keyou did not build any houses on it. In 2013, due to failure to complete the building construction procedures, the Lanshan Andongwei East Street Neighborhood Committee took back the building base and compensated Zhang Shouzhong for a resettlement house located in Room 102, West Unit, Building 7, Fenghuangshan Community, Andongwei Street, Lanshan District, Rizhao City. Zou Keyou believes that he has already acquired the building base, therefore, the above-mentioned resettlement housing compensated based on the building base should belong to him. Due to unsuccessful negotiations with Zhang Shouzhong regarding the ownership of the resettlement house, Zou Keyou sued this court and demanded that Zhang Shouzhong return the payment of 56900 yuan for the purchase of the building base and compensate for the losses suffered as a result

During the trial, Zhang Shouzhong argued that 1. The involved building base was a residential land allocated by the village committee according to unified planning, and cannot be bought or sold according to law. The transfer agreement signed by both parties violates legal provisions; 2. Both parties have processed the matter of returning the building base through the witness Zhou Tongtong (who has passed away) in 2004. The defendant paid Zou Keyou 60000 yuan as compensation. Zou Keyou returned the building base to the defendant and submitted a receipt (copy) signed by "Zhou Tongtong", which reads: "Received a one-time buyback of 60000 yuan from Zhang Shouzhong, handled by Zhou Tongtong on September 15, 2004, And stamped with the official seal of the "East Street Neighborhood General Branch Committee of Andongwei Street, Lanshan District, Rizhao City" and the personal seal of Shi Guanghua, Director of the Andongwei East Street Neighborhood Committee of Lanshan City. After investigation and verification by the court, Shi Guanghua said that he had not handled the matter and had not received the seal of the Party branch affixed to the slip at that time. When the court requested further verification of the receipt, Zhang Shouzhong claimed that the original document had been lost. After comparison, there was a significant difference in the signatures of the same industry last week between the received transfer agreement and the transfer agreement signed by both parties.

（2） Judgment results

The effective judgment of the Lanshan District People's Court in Rizhao City, Shandong Province holds that the land occupied by the building base in question is collectively owned land, and Zhang Shouzhong obtained compensation benefits based on the original homestead and the re planning and demolition of the house, which is equivalent to homestead land. Zhang Shouzhong's transfer of the building base to Zou Keyou, who is not a member of this collective economic organization, violated the mandatory provisions of Chinese laws and administrative regulations. The court confirmed in accordance with the law that the transfer agreement was invalid, and Zou Keyou was unable to obtain the right to use the involved building base.

The receipt note submitted by Zhang Shouzhong, with the official seal stamped on it, did not exist on September 15, 2004 and was significantly different from the signature of the same party in the transfer agreement last week. Another signer also denied handling this matter. In the case of multiple doubts about the receipt note, Zhang Shouzhong was unable to provide the original copy on the grounds of loss, making it impossible to further distinguish the authenticity of the evidence. He should bear adverse legal consequences, and the court did not accept the receipt note, The fact that Zhang Shouzhong claims that both parties have terminated the contract and returned 60000 yuan through Zhou Yitong will not be recognized. The property obtained due to an invalid contract shall be returned. Zhang Shouzhong should refund Zou Keyou the purchase price of 56900 yuan for the building base.

Zhang Shouzhong knew that the involved building base could not be transferred to members outside the collective economic organization according to law, but still carried out the transfer; As a bulk transaction in daily life, Zou Keyou purchased the involved building base without confirming the nature of the land, and both parties were at fault for the invalidity of the contract. Zhang Shouzhong claimed that the contract was invalid on the grounds of violating legal provisions after more than ten years of transfer by both parties, and the appreciation of the involved building base had significant benefits. Although it was in compliance with legal provisions, from a moral and emotional perspective, it was a typical violation of the principle of good faith. Therefore, Judge Zhang Shouzhong compensated Zhang Shouzhong for his losses based on the transfer amount and the loan interest rate of the People's Bank of China for the same period.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, with the acceleration of urbanization, the land in the suburbs of cities has continued to appreciate, and disputes related to the purchase and sale of houses and the transfer of homesteads in the aforementioned areas have grown rapidly. According to current laws and national policies, the use rights of collectively owned land such as homesteads have strong social security functions and can only be enjoyed and transferred within the members of the collective economic organization; Otherwise, it will be invalid. However, in practice, there is a large amount of illegal circulation, and if both parties fulfill their obligations normally, this illegal phenomenon also exists "reasonably" without supervision from other departments. But once the dispute enters the court, there is no doubt that the transfer is deemed invalid. After the transfer is deemed invalid, according to Article 58 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, "After the contract is invalid or revoked, the property obtained due to the contract shall be returned; if it cannot be returned or is not necessary to return, it shall be compensated at a discounted price. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered as a result, and if both parties are at fault, they shall each bear corresponding responsibilities. In judicial practice, the handling of compensation for losses caused by invalid contracts is usually based on the principle of "each dealing with fifty major issues". However, for cases involving collective ownership of land use rights and housing transfer disputes that have been common in grassroots judicial practice in recent years, if legal provisions are mechanically applied, it will not only allow dishonest actors to openly obtain extralegal benefits, but also be detrimental to promoting the socialist core values of "integrity" in society.

Honesty and credit are the basic moral principles of people's social and economic activities, and also an important content of socialist core values. The principle of good faith, as a fundamental principle of civil law, requires civil subjects to abide by their promises, be honest and not deceive in civil activities, and not harm the interests of society or others by pursuing personal interests. This is a legal principle based on moral norms. Some disputes, from a legal and moral perspective, may have completely opposite conclusions, just like the dispute in this case. The transferor can use the "legal provisions" as a pretext to commit acts that violate integrity, which is difficult for the transferee and the general public, who are deeply influenced by traditional Chinese moral standards, to accept. Because of this, when handling such disputes, judges need to adhere to legal provisions and appropriately introduce norms such as morality and customs, so as to combine "ruthless" laws with "emotional" moral norms, and achieve the integration of emotions, laws, and principles in judicial judgments. In this case, the judge confirmed that the transfer agreement of the involved building base was invalid according to mandatory provisions of the law; At the same time, the principle of good faith should be introduced to compensate for the losses of the assignee within a reasonable limit, and the dishonest person should bear certain legal sanctions. In this way, it can effectively balance the interests of both parties and also help cultivate a sense of integrity among the public. This is also a good manifestation of cultivating and practicing socialist core values in judicial practice.

6、 Wang Fengming v. Sun Yuanli and Sun Ziming over the Dispute over the Sales Contract

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Wang Fengming is engaged in the business of selling plywood, while the defendant Sun Yuanli has established a Fulong plywood factory in a village of Yitang Town, Lanshan District, Linyi City. It is an individual business engaged in plywood production. Since 2011, the plaintiff Wang Fengming has sent the sheet to Fulong Sheet Factory, and the other defendant in this case, Sun Ziming (Sun Yuanli's brother), will receive the goods, and Sun Yuanli will pay for the goods. On April 1, 2012, the defendant Sun Ziming issued a receipt for the plaintiff Wang Fengming using a standardized "delivery note" after receiving the goods. The receipt stated: sandwich leather, with a payment of 236000 yuan. The defendant once paid 10000 yuan, but later delayed in paying the remaining payment. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Lanshan District Court of Linyi City on September 27, 2013 to recover the remaining payment of 226000 yuan. The two defendants argued that the receipt of goods was signed by Sun Ziming and belonged to the sales contract relationship between Sun Ziming and Wang Fengming. Sun Yuanli also claimed that she had made two payments of 64000 yuan to Wang Fengming through bank deposits on behalf of Sun Ziming, and the remaining payment should be made by Sun Ziming.

1、 During the second instance, both Sun Ziming and Sun Yuanli, the second appellees, did not appear in court to answer the lawsuit. They were all represented by Wang Lin, a specially authorized agent.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Linyi City, Shandong Province, held in the second instance that there were two key issues of controversy in this case: first, whether the buyer of the batch of sheet metal sales contracts was Sun Ziming or Sun Yuanli. 2、 The appellant Sun Yuanli once deposited 54000 yuan with the appellant Wang Fengming's bank card, whether it was a repayment of the payment for the batch of boards in this case.

Regarding the focus of the dispute between the two parties, the appellant Sun Yuanli acknowledges that since 2011, the appellant Wang Fengming has been delivering boards to Fulong Board Factory. Both parties have had multiple transactions, and the payment for the goods was also made by Sun Yuanli before. In this case, the batch of boards was sent to Fulong Board Factory, which was actually used for the production and operation of the board factory, and some of the payment for the batch of boards has already been paid by him; In the recorded evidence provided by Wang Fengming, Sun Yuanli recognized Sun Ziming's act of issuing a debt certificate and promised to repay the debt incurred by Sun Ziming's receiving behavior. Considering previous trading habits, sibling relationships, and other factors, Sun Ziming's act of issuing a debt certificate on behalf of Fulong Plate Factory is an act of fulfilling his duties. According to Article 43 of the General Principles of the Civil Law (enterprise legal persons shall bear civil liability for the business activities of their legal representatives and other workers), Sun Yuanli shall bear civil liability for Sun Ziming's act of issuing a debt certificate. The second appellant claimed that Sun Ziming resold the board to Sun Yuanli, and the fact that Sun Yuanli had already paid the goods to Sun Ziming at the end of 2012 was not supported by any evidence provided by the two parties, and the second instance court did not accept it. Therefore, it should be determined that the buyer of the panel is an individual owner, Sun Yuanli.

Regarding the focus of the dispute, the second instance court held that the bank deposit receipt is a business voucher issued by the bank to the depositor to prove the transaction between the bank and the depositor, not a receipt issued by the appellant to the depositor. This business voucher can only prove the fact that the depositor Sun Yuanli deposited 54000 yuan with Wang Fengming's bank card on April 14, 2012, and cannot prove the purpose of the deposit. The bank deposit receipt itself cannot prove the correlation with the payment in this case. After providing the bank deposit receipt, the appellant still needs to provide evidence to prove the correlation between the bank deposit receipt and the payment in this case. At this time, the burden of proof does not shift. Because the previous debt vouchers were destroyed after the payment of the goods, requiring the creditor to provide evidence of the previous debt vouchers would cause significant difficulties for the creditor and be unfair to the creditor. In this case, Sun Yuanli only provided a banking voucher and failed to further prove the correlation between the banking voucher and the payment in this case. The second instance court did not determine the correlation between the 54000 yuan bank deposit voucher and the debt in this case. The court did not consider this evidence to be valid evidence in this case, and Sun Yuanli's claim to offset the total payment for this deposit is not valid. In addition, the appellant Sun Yuanli's use of bank remittance to only obtain business vouchers issued by the bank and failure to timely change the debt vouchers between him and the appellant after deposit is an important reason for Sun Yuanli's difficulty in providing evidence, and the consequences arising from this should be borne by him.

According to this judgment, the appellant Sun Yuanli shall repay the appellant Wang Fengming with a loan amount of 226000 yuan and interest within ten days after the effective date of this judgment (the interest shall be calculated from April 1, 2012 to the date of performance determined by this court, based on the benchmark loan interest rate set by the People's Bank of China for the same period).

（3） Typical significance

This case is an ordinary sales contract case, but the reasoning of the judge is very thorough. One is about the division of the burden of proof. After claiming repayment, the debtor has the obligation to provide evidence to prove that the repayment has been made, which is beyond doubt. In the case of insufficient evidence, the debtor must bear the risk of losing the lawsuit, and the burden of proof does not shift. In this case, Sun Yuanli provided evidence based on a bank deposit receipt, but this evidence cannot fully prove that she has repaid the loan. Sun Yuanli still has the obligation to provide evidence to prove this fact. The second is the determination of the validity of bank deposit business vouchers as evidence, especially the determination of their relevance. A bank deposit receipt is a business voucher issued by a bank to a depositor to prove that a transaction has occurred between the bank and the depositor. It is not a receipt issued by a creditor to the depositor. This business voucher can only prove the fact of the depositor's deposit, but cannot prove the purpose of the deposit, that is, whether the debt has been repaid. In the case of multiple debts, it cannot prove that the deposit was used to repay which debt. That is, the bank deposit receipt itself cannot prove the relevance of the debt. The third is the determination of the job behavior of employees. In this case, Sun Tzu Ming is both Sun Yuanli's brother and an employee of the sheet metal factory. According to past trading habits, Sun Tzu Ming's signature to receive goods should be regarded as a duty behavior. In this case, one party to the sales contract, Sun Yuanli, breached the contract and did not fulfill the payment obligation. The people's courts make judgments in accordance with the law, which has a positive guiding significance.

7、 Hu Baiqing v. Linyi Yixing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Housing Sales Contract Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Hu Baiqing and the defendant Linyi Yixing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. reached a purchase intention on August 9, 2010: the plaintiff purchased a house from the defendant Yixing Company located at Building 101, Building 9, Mingzhu Huayuan, Zhongshan Road, Feicheng Town, and paid a deposit of 50000 yuan to the defendant Yixing Company on the same day. At that time, the defendant's agent promised to pay the purchase price half a month later, and then gave the key and processed the property rights certificate. On August 23, 2013, the plaintiff (buyer) and the defendant Yixing Company (seller) signed a purchase contract, which stipulated a total contract price of 187944 yuan. The seller should deliver the accepted commercial housing to the buyer in accordance with relevant regulations of the national and local people's governments before August 30, 2010. The plaintiff also paid the defendant Yixing Company a purchase price of 130000 yuan. The defendant Yixing Company, as the seller, failed to deliver the building purchased by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as agreed in the contract. It was also found that the defendant sold the building to the plaintiff, which was sold to Yang Ping on October 17, 2006. Yang Ping obtained the ownership certificate of the involved building through property registration at the Fei County Housing Management Bureau. On September 8, 2008, Yang Ping sold the involved building to Li Wenping and registered the transfer of property rights at the Fei County Housing Management Bureau. The Economic Investigation Brigade of Houfei County Public Security Bureau detained the defendant's legal representative Liu Wei on suspicion of a criminal offense. Liu Wei's wife, Li Yongmei, agreed with the plaintiff that Li Yongmei voluntarily raised 180000 yuan in cash to restore the defendant's claim for the purchase of the house. Later, the Economic Investigation Brigade of the Fei County Public Security Bureau transferred the 180000 yuan purchase price to the plaintiff. Due to the matter of compensation for losses, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with this court requesting that the defendant be ordered to terminate the purchase contract signed between the plaintiff and the defendant in accordance with the law, and double the deposit of 50000 yuan paid by the plaintiff for the purchase of the house. The plaintiff shall bear the compensation liability of 180000 yuan, and the defendant shall bear the litigation costs.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Feixian County, Shandong Province believes that the content of the purchase contract signed between the plaintiff and the defendant Yixing Company on August 23, 2013 does not violate relevant legal provisions and is a valid contract. The defendant should have fulfilled their obligation to deliver the property in accordance with Article 60 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China. However, due to the fact that the subject matter stipulated in the contract has been legally acquired by others, the purchase contract signed between the plaintiff and the defendant Yixing Company cannot be fulfilled. The plaintiff's request to terminate the contract complies with relevant legal provisions, and this court supports it. Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Commercial Housing Sales Contracts stipulates that if the seller intentionally conceals the fact that the sold property has been sold to a third party, resulting in the invalidity, revocation, or termination of the contract, the buyer may request the return of the paid purchase price, interest, and compensation for losses, and may also request the seller to bear compensation liability not exceeding twice the paid purchase price. The defendant Yixing Company intentionally concealed the fact that the sold property had been sold to a third party, and the signing of a commercial housing sales contract with the plaintiff was clearly a dishonest act. Therefore, the plaintiff requests the defendant to bear compensation responsibility and the reason for returning the deposit is legitimate, in accordance with relevant legal provisions, and this court supports it. However, according to Article 91 of the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that the deposit shall not exceed 20% of the amount of the main contract, and Article 121 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that if the amount of the deposit agreed upon by the parties exceeds 20% of the amount of the main contract, the excess shall not be supported by the people's court The defendant's agreed deposit amount of 50000 yuan is too high, so it has been adjusted to 37589 yuan (187944 × 20%) is appropriate, and the remaining 12411 yuan should be considered as the purchase price, so the actual purchase price paid by the plaintiff should be 142411 yuan (130000 yuan+12411 yuan). Judgment: 1. The defendant Linyi Yixing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. shall compensate the plaintiff Hu Baiqing with a loss of 142411 yuan and return the plaintiff Hu Baiqing with a deposit of 37589 yuan, totaling 180000 yuan. The performance shall be completed within 5 days after the effective date of this judgment. 2、 Reject the other litigation requests of the plaintiff Hu Baiqing.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving the application of punitive compensation clauses in commercial housing sales contracts that are invalid, revoked, or terminated due to the seller intentionally concealing the fact that the sold property has been sold to a third party. It is also applicable to Article 54 of the Contract Law, which states that one party fraudulently causes the other party to enter into a contract that is revoked in violation of their true intentions. At the same time, this case also elaborates on how to apply the principle of punitive damages and deposit penalties when they coexist in the sale of commercial housing. In commercial housing sales contracts, the principle of punitive damages is not limited to "double return". Both parties are willing to include punitive damages in the contract, which does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations. Therefore, this clause can be regarded as an additional protective measure taken by both parties to protect themselves, and the court should support it.

8、 Ran and Zhang sued a real estate company in Chongqing for a dispute over a housing sales contract

（1） Basic facts of the case

On September 6, 2010, Ran and Zhang (Party B) signed a "Commercial Housing Sales Contract" with a certain company (Party A), which stipulated that Ran and Zhang would purchase a second phase house of a certain company's real estate, with a total transaction price of 366180 yuan. The delivery condition is that Party A shall deliver the commercial housing that has undergone construction project completion acceptance registration to Party B for use before December 10, 2011 in accordance with relevant regulations. The liability for breach of contract for overdue delivery is as follows: If Party B requests to continue performing the contract after the delay exceeds 60 days, the contract shall continue to be performed. From the second day after the final delivery deadline stipulated in this contract to the actual delivery date, Party A shall pay a penalty of 0.3% of the paid house price to Party B on a daily basis, and shall pay a penalty to Party B within 30 days from the delivery date of the commodity house. After the contract was signed, Ran and Zhang paid the full purchase price to a certain company according to the agreement. During the performance of the contract, a certain company pasted a copy of the first phase project completion acceptance registration certificate onto the quality assurance certificate and user manual without obtaining the construction project completion acceptance registration. On December 10, 2011, the house was delivered to Ran and Zhang. After verification with relevant departments, the registration date for the completion acceptance of the houses purchased by Ran and Zhang was May 28, 2012. Ran and Zhang believed that the developer had resorted to fraudulent means to deliver the property in breach of contract, and according to the contract, they should compensate for the breach of contract damages. Therefore, they sued the court.

（2） Judgment results

After the second instance trial, the Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing found that the developer had partially breached the contract, and therefore ruled that the developer should bear 80% of the breach liability, paying Ran and Zhang a penalty of 14940.14 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of controversy in this case is whether the developer who fraudulently delivers the property but does not cause actual losses to the buyer should bear the responsibility for breach of contract? Honesty and trustworthiness are a fundamental principle in market economy activities. Article 4 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that civil activities shall follow the principles of voluntariness, fairness, compensation for equal value, and honesty and credibility. Article 106 stipulates that citizens or legal persons who violate contracts or fail to fulfill other obligations shall bear civil liability. Article 5 of the Contract Law stipulates that the parties shall follow the principle of fairness in determining the rights and obligations of each party. Article 60 stipulates that the parties shall fully fulfill their obligations in accordance with the agreement. The parties shall follow the principle of good faith and fulfill their obligations of notification, assistance, confidentiality, etc. in accordance with the nature, purpose, and trading habits of the contract. Article 107 stipulates that if one party fails to fulfill its contractual obligations or fails to fulfill the 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. Article 114 stipulates that the parties may agree that when one party breaches the contract, they shall pay a certain amount of liquidated damages to the other party based on the circumstances of the breach, and may also agree on the calculation method of compensation for losses incurred due to the breach.

In this case, although the commercial housing involved in the case finally passed the completion acceptance, the quality of the housing was also qualified, and the developer's delay in obtaining the completion acceptance registration certificate did not actually affect the buyer's possession, use, income, and disposal of the housing after receiving the commercial housing, that is, the buyer did not actually suffer any losses. However, as a developer, delivering the property through fraudulent means infringes on the buyer's right to informed choice. The court's legal judgment on developers to bear the liability for breach of contract for overdue delivery can not only protect the legitimate rights and interests of buyers, but also serve as a warning to developers, promoting their awareness of the rule of law, complying with market economic rules, promoting the principle of integrity in the whole society, and reducing disputes. Therefore, the court ruled that it is reasonable for the developer to bear 80% of the responsibility for partial breach of contract.

9、 Zheng v. Ran Civil Loan Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On the evening of December 31, 2011, the defendant Ran, citing urgent need for funds to buy a house for his cousin and unable to withdraw his savings before maturity, found the plaintiff Zheng to borrow RMB 20000 while attending his father's funeral. The plaintiff, who was familiar with the defendant's husband and wife and understood the defendant's family situation, borrowed 1200 yuan from Yang Moujiang, an outsider present at the time, and raised 20000 yuan to deliver to the defendant himself. Moreover, due to the small loan amount and the large number of guests at the funeral, the plaintiff did not require the defendant to provide a written promissory note, nor did they specify a specific repayment time and interest calculation standard. The defendant only verbally promised to repay the debt in a short period of time, considering that writing a promissory note in public would harm the face of both parties. After half a year, the plaintiff saw that the defendant still had no intention of repayment, so they repeatedly sought payment from him. However, the defendant kept back for various reasons. Recently, the defendant evaded the debt by avoiding it. Therefore, on August 6, 2014, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Youyang Tujia and Miao Autonomous County, Chongqing, demanding that the defendant repay the loan and interest, and bear the litigation costs of this case. The plaintiff in the trial clearly stated that the interest on the funds will be calculated from one month after the loan date to the actual repayment date, and voluntarily chose to use the local rural commercial bank loan interest rate as a reference for this interest. Due to the defendant's failure to appear in court, mediation was not possible.

（2） Judgment results

After the trial, the court held that although neither party had direct evidence, the indirect evidence submitted by the plaintiff was from a legitimate source, the content was in line with objective facts, the evidence was true and effective, and each evidence could form a chain of evidence that could confirm each other, sufficient to determine the debt debt relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the judgment is that the defendant shall repay the plaintiff with a loan principal of 20000 yuan and pay the plaintiff interest from the date of acceptance by the court to the date of actual settlement at the same interest rate as the similar loan of Chongqing Rural Commercial Bank for the same period. Recently, the judgment has come into effect.

（3） Typical significance

A large number of private lending disputes occur between acquaintances, such as friends, colleagues, and even brothers. In daily life, acquaintances rarely write promissory notes or other vouchers due to factors such as face and affection. Once the other party breaches the contract, it is generally difficult for the lender to provide effective direct evidence to determine the fact that the borrowing behavior is valid. In this case, the court should combine the indirect evidence provided by all parties in the judgment, Confirming lending behavior in a situation where evidence can reflect each other and form a chain of evidence, in order to maintain social integrity and achieve fairness and justice.

The judge reminds that in daily life, even between acquaintances, relevant evidence should be kept to avoid being unable to provide evidence in case of disputes, leading to losing the lawsuit.

10、 Dispute case of Zhou v. Chongqing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. regarding the purchase and sale contract of a house

（1） Basic facts of the case

On July 7, 2010, Zhou (Party B) signed a "Chongqing Commercial Housing Sales Contract" with a company (Party A), which stipulated that the total transaction amount of the commercial housing was 268672 yuan. Zhou should pay the house price of 255238 yuan on July 7, 2010, and the remaining 13434 yuan should be paid before July 30, 2011; A certain company should deliver the house to Zhou before July 30, 2011. If Zhou requests to continue fulfilling the contract after the overdue delivery exceeds 30 days, the contract will continue to be fulfilled. A certain company should pay Zhou a penalty of four thousandths of the paid house price on a daily basis from the second day of the agreed final delivery deadline to the actual delivery date. At the same time, Article 8 of the contract stipulates that if the delivery fails to be made on time due to the reasons of Party B, both parties agree to handle it in the following ways: (2) Party B shall pay off the full house price (including mortgage loans and area difference refunds and supplements), pay off the fees specified by government departments (including overhaul funds and taxes), and have no bank mortgage arrears before the handover of the house. After the contract was signed, Zhou paid the house price and special maintenance fee to the defendant company as agreed in the contract. On November 20, 2012, a certain company notified the plaintiff Zhou to pick up the house. On March 12, 2014, Zhou delivered the remaining payment to the defendant company.

It was also found that during the performance of the contract, the original legal representative of a certain company, Li Mouqiang (also the then chairman of a Chongqing Urban Construction (Group) Co., Ltd.) and shareholder Li Mou, were investigated by the Changshou District Public Security Bureau of Chongqing on suspicion of colluding in bidding. In May 2011, the financial information, bank accounts, and assets, including some projects, of a certain company were successively seized, frozen, or seized, and the construction project of a certain community was subsequently suspended. On May 7, 2012, the Changshou District Public Security Bureau of Chongqing lifted the mandatory measures against a company's bank account. On November 19, 2012, a certain company passed the Chongqing construction project completion acceptance record and the construction project fire completion acceptance record for the 10th building of its residential area.

Later, Zhou sued and demanded that a company pay a penalty of 51477.55 yuan for 479 days of overdue delivery of the house. However, a company believed that according to Article 8 of the contract between the two parties, the condition for delivery of the house was that Zhou should first pay the full amount of the house and have no mortgage arrears before proceeding with the delivery of the house. That is, the plaintiff had to fulfill their obligations first, so they did not agree to pay the penalty for overdue delivery.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Changshou District, Chongqing, in accordance with Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 44, Paragraph 1, Article 67, and Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, has ruled to dismiss the plaintiff Zhou's lawsuit request. The Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court, in accordance with Article 170, Paragraph 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, has ruled that the appeal shall be rejected and the original judgment shall be upheld.

（3） Typical significance

After the trial, the Changshou District People's Court held that the "Chongqing Commercial Housing Sales Contract" signed by the plaintiff Zhou and the defendant company was legal and valid. Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the contract stipulates that Zhou must pay in full the house price, the fees specified by the government department, and there is no bank mortgage debt before the transfer of the house can be carried out. As Zhou only paid the remaining balance of 13434 yuan on March 12, 2014, and did not submit relevant evidence to prove that a company refused to fulfill its payment obligations, the first instance court rejected the plaintiff Zhou's lawsuit request. Zhou refused to accept the verdict of the first instance and appealed to the Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court, stating that this case belongs to a contract that was performed simultaneously. The buyer did not fulfill the obligation of the contract first. When he saw that the house in the purchased community was suspended, the chairman of a certain company, Li Mouqiang, was criminally investigated, and his account was sealed, he had reason to suspect that a certain company could not deliver the house on time. He could unilaterally exercise his right of uneasy defense and suspend the delivery of the final payment of the house. The court of second instance held that the meaning expressed in Article 8 (2) of the purchase contract signed by both parties is that the performance of the contract has a sequential order, and Party B pays all the contract price first before Party A fulfills its obligation to deliver the house. Zhou claimed that before the agreed delivery date of the house payment in the contract, he discovered that a certain company's financial information, bank accounts, and assets, including some projects, had been seized, frozen, or seized and could not be delivered on time. Without timely communication and verification with the other party, he voluntarily suspended the performance of the contract without notifying the other party, which did not meet the conditions and standards for exercising the right to defense against unease. Before receiving the full payment from Zhou, a certain company can exercise the right of defense and have the right not to fulfill the obligation to deliver the house.

The focus of this case is mainly on the understanding and application of adversarial defense rights. Article 67 of the Contract Law of our country stipulates that the parties bear debts to each other, and there is a sequence of performance. If the party who performs first fails to perform, the party who performs later has the right to refuse its performance request. If the first party to fulfill the debt does not comply with the agreement, the latter party has the right to refuse its corresponding performance requirements. Article 68 stipulates that a party who should first fulfill its obligations may suspend performance if there is conclusive evidence to prove that the other party has one of the following circumstances: (1) the business situation has seriously deteriorated; （2） Transferring assets and evading funds to evade debts; （3） Loss of commercial reputation; （4） Other situations where there is a loss or potential loss of the ability to fulfill debts. If a party suspends performance without conclusive evidence, they shall be liable for breach of contract.

Specifically, in this case, the first and second instance courts have basically the same approach. The exercise of the right of defense is a remedy against breach of contract. In the bilateral contract, the rights and obligations of both parties should first be determined based on the contract agreement signed by both parties. In this case, it is a fact that a company did not deliver the house to Zhou at the agreed time in the contract, but the contract clearly stipulates that Zhou should pay all the fees and other expenses before the house can be handed over, That is, Zhou should fulfill his obligation to make payment first before a certain company fulfills its obligation to deliver the house. At the same time, Zhou claimed in the trial that he had fulfilled his obligations at a certain company, and that his sales department had closed, but there was no evidence submitted. If he was unable to directly fulfill his obligations, he could also use other methods to fulfill his payment obligations, such as deposit. In addition, Zhou claimed in the second instance that he was exercising his right of uneasy defense. However, according to the above legal provisions, Zhou discovered that a certain company had the possibility of not being able to deliver the house on time and did not communicate and verify with the other party in a timely manner. Without notifying the other party, he voluntarily suspended the performance of the contract. If the exercise conditions and performance standards of the right to uneasy defense are not met, the right to uneasy defense cannot be established. Therefore, a certain company should not pay a penalty to Zhou.

11、 Case of Wang and others suing the defendant, a work injury insurance management office in a certain district of Chongqing, and a third party, a coal mining company in Chongqing, for not fulfilling their administrative payment obligations

（1） Basic facts of the case

Due to exceeding the recruitment age, Chen Moudong was unable to work at a local coal mining company. So Chen Moudong thought of a way to impersonate his younger brother Chen Mouqiang's name. In July 2000, Chen Moudong interned at a coal mining company under the name of "Chen Mouqiang". In November of the same year, he was recruited to a coal mining company to work in coal mining. From July 2004 to July 2012, the coal mining company purchased work-related injury insurance for "Chen Mouqiang".

One day in July 2012, Chen Moudong died in a car accident while driving a motorcycle while leaving work. The local human resources and social security bureau identified him as a work-related injury death. Later, due to a name issue, in September 2014, relatives of Chen Moudong, Wang Mouxian, and others applied to the local human resources and social security bureau to change the "Chen Mouqiang" in the original work injury determination decision to "Chen Moudong". In January 2015, Chen's relatives applied to the local work injury insurance management department for Chen's work injury death insurance benefits. The management department of work-related injury insurance has reviewed and found that work-related injury insurance adopts a real name system. Since work-related injury insurance is purchased under the name of "Chen Mouqiang", it indicates that Chen Moudong has not participated in work-related injury insurance. Therefore, it is determined that one-time funeral subsidies, one-time work-related death subsidies, and dependent family pensions will not be paid.

Chen Moudong's relatives believe that relevant departments have determined that Chen Moudong died of work-related injury, and Chen Moudong's work unit has actually insured him. The work-related injury insurance management department should provide Chen Moudong with work-related injury death insurance benefits, so they filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Beibei District, Chongqing.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the court held that according to relevant laws and regulations, employers should pay work-related injury insurance premiums for their employees. In this case, according to the identity information of "Chen Mouqiang" provided by Chen Moudong, the coal mining company paid the work-related injury insurance premium for Chen Moudong in the name of "Chen Mouqiang". Its true meaning should be understood as that the insured object is actually Chen Moudong, an employee of the company, rather than Chen Mouqiang, who has no labor relationship with the company, that is, Chen Moudong and the social insurance administrative department have established a work-related injury insurance relationship in fact. In this case, Chen Moudong has been determined by relevant departments to have died of work-related injuries, and the coal mining company has also paid work-related injury insurance premiums for him. Therefore, the work-related injury insurance management department should approve the work-related injury death insurance benefits for Chen Moudong. Based on this, the local work injury insurance management department changed the original specific administrative behavior during the trial, and the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit.

（3） Typical significance

According to the Regulations on Work Injury Insurance, the scope of work injury insurance targets is: "Employees of enterprises, public institutions, social organizations, private non enterprise units, foundations, law firms, accounting firms, and other organizations within the People's Republic of China, as well as employees of individual industrial and commercial households, have the right to enjoy work injury insurance benefits in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations.

The Measures for the Recognition of Work Injuries also stipulate that the proof of labor relations with the employer includes proof of factual labor relations. That is to say, in the legal provisions of work-related injury insurance, employees refer to various workers who have labor relations with the employer, which of course includes factual labor relations. In this case, although Chen Moudong impersonated someone else's identity, he established a de facto labor relationship with the coal mining company, which belongs to the legal meaning of employees under the "Work Injury Insurance Regulations". Therefore, his situation of work-related injury death falls within the scope of work-related injury death insurance benefits.

12、 Li and Wang v. Chen in the Civil Loan Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

From May 2008 to April 2009, Li successively lent 7 million yuan to Chen for the purpose of issuing high interest loans, earning monthly interest of 4% or 5% from Chen. Since the loan was made, Chen has successively paid a total of 2.33 million yuan in interest to Li and Wang. After June 2009, Chen did not pay any more interest and did not repay the loan principal of 7 million yuan. On July 25, 2014, Li and his wife Wang filed a lawsuit in court, requesting that Chen repay the loan of 7 million yuan and pay interest at the benchmark interest rate of similar loans of the People's Bank of China for the same period.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Fifth Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing found that Li and Wang, who were aware that Chen's loan was used to issue high interest loans to others, still provided him with loan funds, which harmed the public interest. According to the relevant provisions of the Contract Law, the loan should be deemed invalid. After the loan is deemed invalid, although Chen should return the loan principal and interest calculated based on the benchmark interest rate of similar loans of the People's Bank of China for the same period, the portion of the 2.33 million interest already paid by Chen that exceeds the benchmark interest rate of similar loans of the People's Bank of China for the same period should be offset against the loan principal. Chen should refund the outstanding principal and interest after offsetting.

（3） Typical significance

The lender knowingly or should have known that the borrower's loan was used for illegal and criminal activities, but still provided the loan in order to obtain high interest rates. This phenomenon often occurs in society, but there are not many cases where the evidence can determine that the lender knowingly used the loan for illegal and criminal activities. In such cases, the court determines that the private lending contract is invalid and does not protect the high interest rates, liquidated damages, etc. agreed between the parties, It has played a positive role in maintaining the normal order of private financing.

13、 Zheng v. Lei, Liu, and Chongqing Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. Private Loan Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On July 2, 2013, Zheng, Lei, and Chongqing Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. signed a "Personal Loan Contract", which stipulated that Lei would borrow 200000 yuan from Zheng and provide collateral for his property. On July 3, 2013, Zheng paid a loan of 200000 yuan to Lei through bank transfer. Subsequently, Lei provided Zheng with a copy of the "Real Estate Ownership Certificate" of the property jointly owned by him and Liu. Due to Lei's failure to repay on time, Zheng filed a lawsuit in court, claiming that he had the priority right to receive compensation for the property jointly owned by Lei and Liu.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Yubei District, Chongqing believes that due to the lack of mortgage registration for the disputed property, and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Property Law, the mortgage right has not been established, and therefore does not support Zheng's claim for priority compensation.

（3） Typical significance

In private lending, if the property or property rights that require mortgage registration or pledge registration under the Property Law are used as collateral, registration procedures should be completed with the relevant registration authority. If it is not registered in accordance with the law, the mortgage or pledge rights have not been established, and the lender does not have the priority right to receive compensation for the guaranteed property or property rights.

14、 Li sues Duan in a civil loan dispute case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On February 5, 2015, the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff signed a "House Purchase and Sale Contract" with the defendant to ensure that the creditor's rights could be realized upon maturity. The contract stipulates that the plaintiff will purchase a villa located in Qujing City from the defendant for a price of 1 million yuan. The defendant will cooperate with the plaintiff to complete the property transfer registration procedures at the property registration authority before May 6, 2015. On the same day, the plaintiff remitted 945000 yuan to the defendant, and the defendant issued a receipt to the plaintiff. The receipt states that the defendant has received 1 million yuan from the plaintiff for the transfer of the villa, including 945000 yuan paid by transfer and 55000 yuan paid in cash. Furthermore, it was found that both the plaintiff and the defendant did not provide a written promissory note, did not agree on interest and repayment time, and the defendant paid over 1.83 million yuan for the purchase of the disputed property in this case. The plaintiff's original request was for the defendant to immediately handle the housing transfer procedures for the plaintiff after the judgment came into effect. After the court clarified, the original request was changed to the defendant's repayment of the plaintiff's loan principal of 1 million yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The order shall be made by the defendant Duan within 30 days after the judgment takes effect to repay the principal of the loan of 1 million yuan to Li.

（3） Typical significance

1. The Legislative Intention of Implementing Judicial Interpretation

In the practice of private lending, the parties involved in the lending process sign a sales contract as collateral for the lending contract, which is a typical type of dispute. Once the loan term expires and the debtor is unable to repay the principal and interest of the loan, the creditor often demands the performance of the sales contract, thereby directly obtaining ownership of the subject matter. The creditor sets aside the main contract and requests direct performance of the sales contract as a subordinate contract, which actually reverses the relationship between the main and subordinate contracts. Therefore, Article 24 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Loan Cases" clearly stipulates that such cases should be heard in accordance with the legal relationship of private loans.

2. Maintain consistency in property law theory

The principle of 'prohibition of collateral transfer' is a major principle in property law, aimed at preventing creditors from taking advantage of their advantageous position to harm the interests of the debtor and causing substantial unfairness to the mortgagor. In the transaction mode where the sales contract guarantees the loan contract, the creditor fixes the value of the collateral before the debt matures through the sales contract, and due to the existence of pre-sale registration, the debtor cannot achieve the market value of the collateral through other transaction channels. The sales contract actually achieves the effect of collateral transfer, which violates the mandatory provision of "no collateral transfer".

3. Protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved

To ensure the smooth realization of creditors' rights, the value of the subject matter of the signed sales contract is usually higher than that of the loan contract. If the creditor directly obtains ownership of the subject matter of the sales contract, it often brings certain economic losses to the debtor, and may also harm the legitimate rights and interests of other creditors. In practice, it is recommended to preserve the subject matter of the sales contract during the litigation process, ensure the possibility of creditors realizing their claims through legal means, and provide balanced protection for the interests of all parties involved.

15、 Ma v. Zhang Civil Loan Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On November 13, 2012, Zhang borrowed 36500 yuan from Ma and issued a debit note to Ma. At the urging of Ma, Zhang returned 20000 yuan at the end of 2013, with the remaining 16500 yuan not returned. The interest calculation should be based on the monthly interest rate of 5.125 ‰.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jimunai County held that a loan contract between natural persons shall take effect from the time the lender provides the loan. Ma provided a loan to Zhang according to the agreement, and Zhang used it to issue a loan receipt to Ma. A loan relationship was formed between Ma and Zhang. Ma lent to Zhang as agreed, and Zhang should repay on time according to the contract. In this case, Zhang did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the relationship between Yuan and Zhang was not a loan relationship. The fact that Ma requested Zhang to repay a loan of 16500 yuan is clear and the evidence is indeed sufficient, and this court supports it. Ma requested Zhang to pay interest on the loan, but as the original and Zhang did not agree on the calculation method of interest, and Ma did not provide evidence to prove the specific time when Ma requested Zhang to repay the loan, this court does not support Ma's request for Zhang to pay interest. According to Article 206 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, it is adjudged that Zhang shall repay Ma with a loan of 16500 yuan, which shall be paid in one lump sum within ten days from the effective date of the judgment; Refuse the lawsuit request from Ma requesting Zhang to pay interest. After the verdict was pronounced, neither Zhang nor Ma appealed and expressed their satisfaction with the verdict.

（3） Typical significance

Private lending refers to the lending behavior between citizens and non-financial institutions and enterprises. Private lending is a direct financing channel, an investment channel for private capital, and a form of private finance. The law distinguishes between two situations regarding the interest of private lending: agreed upon and non agreed upon. The parties to this case did not agree on the calculation method of interest and interest. According to Article 207 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, the parties may demand payment of overdue interest. However, in this case, Ma did not provide evidence to prove when he claimed his rights to Zhang and when he should start calculating overdue interest. In order to maintain the harmony and stability of the market economy order, he refuted Ma's interest claim.

16、 Wang Lei v. Fushun Lehuo Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Commercial Housing Sales Contract Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff and defendant signed a commercial housing sales contract on December 25, 2011. The plaintiff purchased Room 2, 7th Floor, Unit 3, Building 106, Yangfan Road, Fushun Economic Development Zone, and paid the full purchase price of 359212 yuan on February 12, 2012. The defendant shall deliver the house to the plaintiff on October 31, 2012. Article 9 of the contract stipulates that if the seller fails to deliver the commodity house to the buyer for use within the time limit specified in the contract, and the delay exceeds 30 days, the buyer has the right to terminate the contract. If the buyer terminates the contract, the seller shall refund all payments made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the buyer's notice of termination, and pay a penalty of 0.5% of the cumulative payments made by the buyer to the buyer. Due to the defendant's failure to deliver the house to the plaintiff as scheduled, the plaintiff submitted a written notice to the defendant on December 1, 2012, in accordance with the contract, to terminate the commercial housing sales contract and refund all the purchase price and pay liquidated damages. On December 7, 2012, the defendant delivered the purchase contract, original household certificate, and two copies of invoice. On January 6, 2013, the plaintiff received the full purchase price of 359212 yuan refunded by the defendant. Regarding the delay in delivery of the disputed commercial housing in this case due to the developer's reasons, can the buyer advocate for an appropriate increase in the calculation standard of the penalty if the contractual penalty is too low? The original trial court believed that because there is a clear agreement on the penalty in the contract and the agreed penalty is not significantly too low, the original trial court determined the amount of the penalty based on the contractual penalty calculation standard, The buyer's request to adjust the penalty for breach of contract is not supported.

（2） Judgment results

If the calculation standard for liquidated damages has been agreed upon in the commercial housing sales contract signed between the buyer and the developer, and the delay in delivery is caused by the developer's reasons, can the buyer request an appropriate increase in the calculation standard for liquidated damages based on the actual situation. Does this situation comply with the provisions of Article 114 (2) of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China. Article 114 (2) of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if the agreed penalty is lower than the loss caused, the parties may request the people's court or arbitration institution to increase it; If the agreed penalty for breach of contract exceeds the losses caused, the parties may request the people's court or arbitration institution to reduce it appropriately. In this case, although the payment standard for liquidated damages was clearly stipulated in the contract signed by both parties, the failure to continue the performance of the contract was due to the fault of Lehuo Company. Wang Lei failed to obtain the house on time despite paying the full purchase price, resulting in certain economic losses. As the agreed standard for liquidated damages by both parties was significantly lower than the interest rate of similar loans of the People's Bank of China for the same period, However, Wang Lei's claim to calculate the amount of liquidated damages based on the deposit interest lower than the loan interest is voluntary. Therefore, Wang Lei's appeal to increase the payment standard of liquidated damages is legally valid, and the second instance court has adjusted it accordingly. The judgment is as follows: the appellant Fushun Lehuo Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. shall pay the appellant Wang Lei a penalty of 9219.77 yuan and interest within ten days from the effective date of the judgment (the interest rate shall be calculated according to the current deposit interest rate standard of the People's Bank of China for the same period, starting from January 7, 2013 to the date of payment); If a party who has a monetary obligation to perform fails to fulfill its obligations within the prescribed time limit, in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance shall be doubled.

（3） Typical significance

In commercial housing sales contracts, due to the fact that the purchase contract signed between the buyer and the developer is a pre drafted format contract by the developer, the buyer is basically in a disadvantaged position in determining the liability for breach of contract and has no right to change the contract terms, resulting in the developer minimizing their own liability for breach of contract as much as possible. In the process of contract performance, if the developer fails to fulfill the contract as scheduled due to their own reasons, it will cause significant economic losses to the buyer, and the developer will bear a smaller amount of breach of contract liability, resulting in the buyer being unable to achieve a balance between losses and compensation. In this case, the breach clauses agreed upon in the contract signed by both parties cannot be simply applied mechanically. Instead, comprehensive consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 114 (2) of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and the relevant provisions on the principle of fairness in the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, in order to better safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved.

17、 Dispute over the Sales Contract between You and Hongda Company

（1） Basic facts of the case

On November 13, 2013, You signed a motor vehicle sales contract with Hongda Company, agreeing that You would purchase a cement tanker of the battery man brand from Hongda Company for a purchase price of 380000 yuan. The contract specifically stipulates the vehicle configuration: 380W engine, 46 cubic meters of Aerospace Shuanglong brand cement tank. After the contract was signed, You paid for the goods as agreed; Hongda Company delivered the vehicle and related procedures to You Jie and handled the vehicle registration for him. On June 3, 2014, You discovered a crack in the cement tank during transportation and found that the cement tank was not a Aerospace Shuanglong brand. Sui sued and requested Hongda Company to replace the cement tank, and compensated for the loss of 50000 yuan due to work delay and operation.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Linli County, Hunan Province ruled in the first instance that Hongda Company replaced the cement tank with the Aerospace Shuanglong brand cement tank for You and compensated for the shutdown losses of You's vehicle during the tank replacement period. After the first instance judgment, Hongda Company filed an appeal. The second instance judgment of Changde Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The parties to the contract shall strictly abide by the contract and fully and honestly fulfill their obligations. In this case, You fully fulfilled his payment obligation, but Hongda Company did not deliver the cement tank truck equipped with the "Aerospace Shuanglong Brand" to You Jie as agreed, and did not inform You Jie of its recognition. Therefore, He should bear the liability for breach of contract.

18、 Huang Moulou v. Li Mou Civil Loan Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 16, 2000, Li Moucheng borrowed 2000 yuan from the plaintiff Huang Moulou for farming operations and issued a promissory note to the plaintiff Huang Moulou. The promissory note stated that he had borrowed 2000 yuan in cash today. Li Moucheng, on January 16, 2000. Li Moucheng passed away due to illness on June 3, 2000. Before his death, Li Moucheng did not repay a loan of 2000 yuan to the plaintiff Huang Moulou. The defendant Li is the son of Li Moucheng. Li Moucheng passed away and left five houses to be inherited by the defendant Li Moucheng. Huang has repeatedly consulted with the defendant Li about payment matters, but they have not been properly resolved. In order to protect their legitimate rights and interests, Huang Moulou filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the defendant pay the outstanding amount and the litigation costs of this case.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the Beiguan District Court held that Li Moucheng borrowed 2000 yuan from the plaintiff Huang Moulou to operate aquaculture, and issued a loan receipt to the plaintiff Huang Moulou. The loan relationship formed between the two parties is a true expression of their intentions and does not violate the restrictive provisions of laws and regulations. This court provides protection in accordance with the law. The reason for the dispute in this case is that Li Moucheng failed to repay the loan to the plaintiff Huang Moulou in a timely manner. According to relevant laws and regulations in China, inheriting an estate should first repay the debts of the deceased within the scope of the estate. The defendant Li in this case inherited five houses left by Li, and the value of the estate is not less than 2000 yuan. Therefore, the plaintiff Huang Moulou requested the defendant Li Moulou to repay the loan, which is supported by the law. The plaintiff, Huang Moulou, has provided evidence to prove that Li Moucheng owes 2000 yuan and has fulfilled his obligation to provide evidence. The defendant, Li Mou, denies this fact and should bear the burden of proof. As he did not provide evidence to prove his claim, his defense opinion is not accepted by this court. Thus, the defendant Li was sentenced to repay the loan of 2000 yuan borrowed from Huang's building. The judgment has now come into effect.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving the burden of proof in civil litigation in China. The burden of proof has two meanings in our country. Firstly, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their legal claims are based. Secondly, when the facts to be proven are still in a state of uncertainty after being presented and cross-examined by both parties, the party responsible for the burden of proof bears the adverse consequences. According to the principle of allocation of burden of proof, the party claiming the existence of a legal relationship shall bear the burden of proof to prove the occurrence of the legal relationship. The party claiming that the legal relationship does not exist shall bear the burden of proof to prove that the legal relationship has not occurred or has been extinguished. If either party provides insufficient evidence to prove the above facts, they shall bear the adverse consequences arising therefrom. In this case, the plaintiff Huang Moulou provided a promissory note to prove the existence of the loan relationship and has fulfilled the obligation of proof; The defendant, Li, does not agree with this and should bear the burden of proof to prove that the legal relationship does not exist or has been extinguished. As he did not provide sufficient evidence to prove his claim, he should bear the risk of losing the lawsuit, which is the adverse consequences arising from this.

19、 Yan Zuochen and Li Qiuxia v. Beijing China International Travel Service Co., Ltd. Tourism Contract Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 19, 2012, Yan Zuochen and Li Qiuxia signed the "Beijing Outbound Tourism Contract" with an international travel agency, agreeing to travel to four countries: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, with a total travel cost of 165600 yuan, including all transportation costs for the trip from Beijing to S ã o Paulo, Manaus, Rio, Doha, and Beijing. During the trip, the international travel agency requested Yan Zuochen and Li Qiuxia to pay for the air tickets from S ã o Paulo to Manaus at their own expense. Yan Zuochen and Li Qiuxia believe that the itinerary is the agreed upon itinerary in the tourism contract, and the international travel agency company should bear the transportation costs for the aforementioned itinerary according to the contract. Therefore, the lawsuit was brought to the court to demand that the international travel agency pay a total of 17844.82 yuan for the airfare expenses incurred by Yan Zuochen and Li Qiuxia themselves.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance court held that the "Beijing Outbound Tourism Contract" signed by Yan Zuochen, Li Qiuxia, and International Travel Agency Company is a true expression of the parties' intentions, does not violate laws and regulations, and is legal and valid. The travel contract clearly stipulates the transportation standards, travel expenses, and composition. Now, Yan Zuochen and Li Qiuxia separately pay the airfare fees, and the international travel agency company is required to bear the contract basis. Their claim for standards is based on legal evidence, and the international travel agency company is sentenced to pay Yan Zuochen and Li Qiuxia airfare fees of 17844.82 yuan. The second instance court believes that a contractual legal relationship has been established between the two parties, and each party should fully and appropriately enjoy their rights and fulfill their obligations in accordance with the provisions of the contract. The loss of Yan Zuochen and Li Qiuxia's re purchase of air tickets is directly related to the improper behavior of the international travel agency company, and also goes against the agreed terms of the contract between both parties. The international travel agency company should bear the cost of the air tickets. The judgment is upheld.

（3） Typical significance

The travel agency and tourists have entered into a tourism contract on an equal and voluntary basis, which clearly stipulates transportation standards, travel expenses, etc., including all air ticket transportation expenses that have been paid by tourists. According to the above agreement, tourists who pay additional airfare fees have the right to request the travel agency to bear the costs. There are flaws in the arrangement of the travel agency, resulting in the loss of tourists purchasing their own tickets due to delayed flights. This loss is directly related to the improper behavior of the travel agency and violates the provisions of the tourism contract signed by both parties. Therefore, travel agencies should bear compensation responsibility for the airfare expenses incurred by tourists.