Kowloon Real Estate Corp. V. Huang Zujian Unjust Enrichment Dispute Comment

As an important civil law system, the unjust enrichment system has two thousandsyears of history. In the case of the diversity of today’s social structure and the socialproblems being more complicated, the discussion of unjust enrichment has broughtattention to the academic and the practice. Especially in the practice of the rightsviolations, unjust enrichment which as an applicable law case had emergedendlessly.After two people’s court hearing, Pingxiang City Kowloon Real Estate Ltd. v.Huang zujian built unjust enrichment case, the outcome are still pending so far.Thecase has exist the following four focus of controversy: whether the defendant Huangzujian constitute embezzlement; Whether Wu evicted the disposition of the demolitionhouses belong to unauthorized disposition;" Pingxiang families residential recyclingcompanies resettlement Supplemental Agreement" is effective; Whether the defendantHuang zujian constitute unjust enrichment. According to the legal relationship betweenthis case the court classified it belong to unjust enrichment dispute, that the core issuein dispute is whether the defendant Huang zujian has a lawful basis to get their share of$8,9000remuneration, which is whether the defendant Huang zujian constitute unjustenrichment. I believe that the focus of the dispute must be resolved as follows, sellingcommission agreement with the defendant Huang zujian Wu signed the relocatees arefolk private commission, does not belong to the official conduct, so it should not beregarded as embezzlement; Secondly, a new house has not been demolished housingregistration formalities, which ownership vested in the plaintiff real estate companies,demolition houses property changes do not occur, the relocatees do not have the rightto dispose of the compensation of real estate;" Pingxiang families residential recyclingcompanies resettlement supplemental Agreement " belongs to the plaintiff, it has causethe damage to the rights of others to recover89,000yuan and the signed behaviorshould be determined to be invalid; commission selling agreements for the sale anddemolition of houses should be considered valid, because the contract is not fulfilled,the payed back the original number should be returned to the third person Jian-LinYang, at this time，it does not damage the interests of the plaintiff, the defendant doesnot constitute Huang zujian unjust enrichment.