The price limit housing in the same community is separated from the commercial house, and the owner sued for 30,000 yuan

The price -limited house and ordinary commercial houses are segmented in the same property management area, which makes the owners of limited -priced houses unable to use the community public facilities and equipment. As a result, the owner of the limited -priced houses sued the developer and the property company to the court, requiring the second defendant to remove the isolation belt, and asked the developer to pay the loss from the date of delivery to the date of removal of the isolation object. Recently, the Beijing Fangshan Court concluded the pre -sale contract dispute between the commercial housing and judged that the developers would compensate the owner of 30,000 yuan.

When the owner of the limited -priced house was closed, he found that the isolation belt

35 -year -old Mr. Li signed a pre -sale contract with the developer 5 years ago. Buy a limited price of commercial housing somewhere in Fangshan District and pay the house purchase payment. In 2017, after the owner closed the house, he found that a number of facilities such as fences, iron fences, iron doors, and green plants were built in the community.

Mr. Li sued to the court and believes that the developer\’s setting of enclosure caused the owners of the limited -priced house to actually enjoy the service and rights of public facilities and equipment in the community, public green space, etc. It also blocked the fire passage, causing the community entrance to not meet the fire safety requirements of the residential area, leaving serious hidden safety hazards. At the same time, as a service unit for community properties, the property company should ensure that the owner has a comfortable environment. It is persuaded that this negative behavior has also failed to block the development of developers.

Therefore, Mr. Li requires developers and property companies to remove iron fences, fences, iron doors, and green plants that are used in isolation, and require developers to pay The loss of the day (standard for 30,000 yuan per year) is lost.

The Housing and Construction Commission determined that the isolation belt was illegal and ordered to correct it.

The defendant developer argued that he did not agree with Mr. Li\’s lawsuit. First of all, the relevant fence was built by the owner of the commercial house, and it was not built by developers. Therefore, Mr. Li asked the developer to demolish, and the subject was unsatisfactory. Secondly, Mr. Li demanded compensation for losses without legal and factual basis.

The defendant property company believes that Mr. Li\’s demand is disagreed. The green plants used for isolation when the property company settled in the community already existed, and there was no right to remove.

The court found that the price -limited houses and ordinary commercial houses were divided into two areas by iron railings, iron doors, and green plants. After the Housing and Construction Commission received a report from the owner of the community, the behavior of using iron railings and green plants between commodity housing and affordable housing violated the relevant regulations; Rectification. The developer did not rectify after receiving the notice.

The court judged that developers compensated the owner 30,000 yuan

The agreement on the pre -sale contract of commercial housing fulfills its obligations. The quarantine facilities involved in the case have not been planned for approval. The corresponding administrative authorities have found problems and are under administrative disposal. Before the administrative department makes effective administrative acts on the above matters, the matter should not be dealt with by the court through civil lawsuits. Therefore, Mr. Li\’s request for removing iron fences, fences, iron doors, and green plants should be rejected.

The isolation facilities in the community involved in the case have actually hindered the right to use the owners of the price limit house to the better public facilities and equipment in the community. Developers should be faulty as a seller of the house. Essence Therefore, the court provided by Mr. Li\’s request for compensation for the corresponding losses; the specific amount, the court comprehensively considers the performance of contract performance and actual loss. The court\’s reasonable defense opinion was adopted by the court.

In the end, the court judged that the developer compensated Mr. Li for 30,000 yuan in losses.

Judge\’s interpretation: The owners of the limited -priced houses also have the right to use the community together

Article 271 of the Civil Code stipulated that The exclusive parts of the inner residential and operating housing have the right to enjoy the rights of common and joint management for the common parts other than the exclusive part. Therefore, each owner has the right to use supporting facilities and equipment shared by the community within the same property management area.

Price -limited commercial housing is a policy housing implemented by the government to solve the difficulty of low -income household housing difficulties. Developers should know the land planning when bidding for land. For the reasons, deal with and change the public areas without authorization, and treat the owners differently, and harm the public interests of the owner to the community. In this case, developers not only violated the contract agreement, but also hindered the owners\’ possession and use of the common parts of the community, which led to a reduction in the quality of life of the owner and the damage to the common rights and interests.

The judge reminds that the scope of the general property management area has been verified and publicized at the time of construction, and developers should also explicitly explicitly explicitly explicitly explicitly show it. If the real estate management area is indeed because of actual needs, the house administrative department shall meet with the township, the town government or the street office. At the same time, major matters and voting procedures determined by the owner shall comply with Article 278 of the Civil Code.