A company in Shanghai and a company in Suzhou unjust enrichment dispute

[Case classification] : unjust enrichment disputes

[Commissioned time] : February 2017

【 Brief introduction 】

The original and the defendant signed a house purchase contract on June 6, 2014, and the plaintiff purchased a house in Changshu City from the defendant. The plaintiff obtained the property title certificate on June 10, 2014. The defendant leased and profited from the said premises purchased by the plaintiff to outsiders. Between June 1, 2014 and April 30, 2016, the defendant collected a total of $224,216 from outsiders for the rental and operation of the house. The plaintiff thinks that the amount charged by the defendant should belong to the plaintiff, so the plaintiff urges the defendant, but the defendant has not returned, so the lawsuit is filed.

【 Lawyer analysis 】

If the ownership of the house is transferred due to sale, gift or inheritance during the lease term, the original lease contract shall continue to be valid for the lessee and the new homeowner. Where an improper benefit is obtained without a lawful basis, resulting in loss to another person, the improper benefit obtained shall be returned to the person who suffered the loss. In this case, the defendant and an outsider, Ye Mou, signed a lease contract for the Food and Trade Center project (shop) on May 13, 2013, and the contract stipulated that the plaintiff leased the house to Ye mou for use, and Ye Mou also paid the rent and operating security deposit from June 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015 on the date of signing the contract. The rental house defendant was transferred to the plaintiff on June 6, 2014, and the plaintiff also applied for the house ownership certificate on June 10. After handling the relevant warrant, the ownership of the rental house has changed. The defendant had a lawful basis at the time when he received the rent and security deposit, but if he continued to hold the rent after the sale of the premises, he lost his lawful basis and should return the rent and security deposit received to the plaintiff.

【 Verdict 】

Through the lawyer Ruth Guo, the court finally supported the plaintiff's claim and ordered the defendant Suzhou Lunda Real Estate Co., Ltd. to return the rent and security deposit collected by the plaintiff Shanghai Longtian Digital Technology Co., LTD.