[Title] Yu Mouhao’s Dispute over a House Purchase and Sale Contract with Shenyang [Certain] Real Estate Consulting Co., Ltd.

[Keywords] Civil Law / Group Purchase Fee / Discount / Appeal / Breach of Contract (3-5 keywords that accurately reflect the key aspects of the case)

【Key Points of the Ruling】 The court of first instance held that the plaintiff, Yu Mouhao, paid a group-buying fee of 30,000 yuan to the defendant and a deposit of 10,000 yuan to the developer in order to qualify for a preferential housing purchase. However, due to the plaintiff’s breach of contract, he did not actually purchase the house. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had promised to refund the group-buying fee if the purchase failed, but failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this claim. Therefore, the plaintiff bears the legal responsibility for failing to produce sufficient evidence. Consequently, the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff’s claim requesting the defendant to refund the group-buying fee and pay interest.

The second-instance court held that the group-buying fee was a commission paid by the developer to the defendant after the property had been sold. The court recognized the statement made by the defendant’s legal representative in the audio recording evidence submitted by the plaintiff, Yu Mouhao, during the first instance, admitting that the group-buying fee could be refunded. Furthermore, based on new evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the second instance demonstrating the current market price of the disputed property, as well as the defendant’s cross-examination comments, the court adopted the view expressed by the plaintiff’s agent and ruled that although the plaintiff had paid the group-buying fee, he had not actually benefited from the group-buying price.

[Basic Facts of the Case] In November 2017, the plaintiff, through a friend’s introduction, met the defendant’s legal representative and paid the defendant a group-buying fee of 30,000 yuan, intending to enjoy a discount when purchasing commercial properties in a textile and garment mall located in Shenyang. The defendant verbally promised the plaintiff that if the plaintiff decided not to buy the property, the fee would be refunded. However, the plaintiff subsequently did not purchase the aforementioned commercial property and requested the defendant to refund the group-buying fee. Yet, the defendant kept putting off the refund and refused to return the money.

【Judgment Result】 The first-instance judgment dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The second-instance judgment reversed the first-instance judgment and ordered the defendant to refund the plaintiff the group-buying fee of 30,000 yuan.

【Reasons for the Ruling】 First, according to the defendant’s statement, the group-buying fee was commission paid by the developer to the defendant after the plaintiff purchased the property. Second, in the call recording provided by the plaintiff, the defendant’s legal representative admitted that the group-buying fee could be refunded if the plaintiff did not purchase the property. Third, based on the online screenshots of the current market price of the disputed property provided by the plaintiff and the defendant’s objections, it is determined that the plaintiff did not enjoy the group-buying discount.

[Relevant Statute] Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: If the original judgment or ruling has incorrectly ascertained the facts or incorrectly applied the law, it shall be revised, revoked, or amended by way of judgment or ruling in accordance with the law.

[Lawyer’s Perspective] First, during the trial, judges often overlook many key points that are favorable to us. Therefore, it is crucial for us to carefully distill these favorable key points—both during and even after the trial—and to emphasize them prominently when presenting our arguments to the judge. In the first-instance trial of this case, the judge failed to properly consider the recorded phone conversation between the plaintiff and the defendant’s legal representative, and also overlooked the true nature of the group-buying fee. During the second-instance trial, the plaintiff’s attorney focused on highlighting the above-mentioned omissions by the first-instance judge when presenting arguments to the judge and answering questions. As a result, the second-instance judge was able to locate in the first-instance transcript statements made by the defendant that were favorable to our position. Second, we made every effort to gather evidence supporting our own viewpoint. In the first-instance court, despite the defendant failing to submit any evidence at all, the court ruled that the defendant had already provided the plaintiff with the group-buying discount, thereby shifting an undue burden of proof onto the plaintiff. Although this was not originally the plaintiff’s burden of proof, the plaintiff did provide new evidence in the second-instance trial demonstrating current housing prices, which strongly supported the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant had not actually offered the group-buying discount.