7.4-acre?development?site?near?Chengde?Chengde?mountain?resort?|?land?dispute,?dispute?investigation?|?_?news
Recently,?Chengde,?Hebei?province?lasted?9?years,?city?level?court?has?heard?5?times?a?land?dispute?case?has?aroused?social?concern.
Due?to?the?9-year?litigation,?complex?case?proceedings,?defendants?in?the?case,?the?lawyer?Sun?Shijia?"marry"?metaphor,?"would?be?like?if?you?like?a?girl,?and?two?people?fall?in?love,?card,?wedding?and?even?had?a?child,?life?was?beautiful.?Suddenly?a?man?go?to?court?to?complain,?said?the?marriage?was?illegal,?bride?and?child?should?be?in?his?possession.?Reason?to?tell?this?person,?is?to?have?a?letter?in?his?hand?when?he?and?bride?fall?in?love?′?love?letters?′.?This?is?absurd?isn′t?it??But?what?is?more?ridiculous?is?the?Court?actually?show?you?a?valid?marriage?license?and?proof?of?related?cases,?annulment?of?the?sentence?you,?your?wife?and?kids,?then?individuals......?"
Recently,?the?China?economic?weekly?reporter?rushed?to?Chengde,?interviews,?investigations?on?this?case.
7.4?hectares?of?land?to?be?stolen?"bride"
Sun?Shijia?said,?"marry",?is?in?fact?a?case?of?equity?joint?land?development?dispute.?Plaintiffs?in?cases?for?the?Chengde?mountain?real?estate?development?company?limited?(hereinafter?referred?to?as?"company")?shareholders?Yao?Chengjiang?(legal?representative),?Yuan?Erming;?defence?Yang?fan,?Chengde?City?real?estate?development?company?limited?(hereinafter?referred?to?as?"Yang?Fan?Company"),?legal?representative?Yang?j.
Yang?Fan?company?was?first?established,?there?were?4?shareholders,?when?Cao?Fu?was?the?legal?representative,?shareholding?structure?by?Cao?Fu?60%,?Yang?j,?8.3%,?Li?Shuhong,?11.7%,?forest?20%.
In?2004,?Yang?fan?was?founded?shortly?through?the?auction?made?a?7.4?acres?of?land?near?Chengde′s?right?to?development.?According?to?the?legal?representative?of?the?company?Yang?j?introduced,?this?land?was?Yang?Fan?only?operate?under?the?company′s?property,?"around?2004,?Chengde?depressed?real?estate?market,?the?company?has?the?right?to?the?development?and?construction?of?the?7.4?hectares?of?land,?due?to?the?relatively?remote,?lot,?wasn′t?worth?it.?”
According?to?Yang?j?on?April?16,?2005,?Yang?Fan?Company?held?the?extraordinary?shareholders?′?meeting,?Cao?Fubing,?Hu?Huilin?asked?to?leave?Yang?Fan?Company?and?transfer?within?a?Yang?Fan?shares?held?by?the?company.?All?the?shareholders?agree?that?Cao?Fubing?it′s?60%?holdings?shares?to?his?Yang?j,?Hu?Huilin?be?transferred?20%?shares?held?by?Li?Shuhong,?formed?a?provisional?shareholders?′?meeting?resolutions?on?that?day.
Two?days?later,?on?April?18,?2005,?Cao?Fubing,?Hu?Huilin?and?Yang?j,?Li?Shuhong?respectively?signed?the?Yang?fan,?Chengde?City?real?estate?development?company?share?transfer?agreement.?Subsequently,?the?equity?transfer?completed,?equity?and?local?industrial?and?commercial?Department?the?alteration.
Since?then,?Yang?June?becoming?the?company′s?largest?shareholder?and?corporate?representatives,?according?to?Sun?Shijia?metaphor,?at?this?time,?Yang?j,?"wife"?(equity)?returning?home,?with?the?only?"kids"?(7.4?acre?development?site).
Next?time,?Yang?j,?led?by?Yang?Fan?Company,?completed?a?7.4-acre?land?tenants?of?compensation,?and?to?proceed?with?the?formation?of?land?and?planning.
In?March?2006,?Yang?j?suddenly?received?a?summons?from?Shuangqiao?District?people′s?Court?in?Chengde?city,?since?then,?Yang?j?suffered?a?9-year?court?battle.
According?to?the?summons,?Yang?j?know,?Chengde?mountain?local?companies?themselves?to?court,?said?the?company?should?own?a?year?ago,?Cao?Fubing?80%?Yang?fan,?Hu?Huilin?holds?a?total?stake?in?the?company,?also?has?the?right?to?this?7.4?acres?of?land?development?and?construction.
Shuangqiao?District?Court?judgments?shows?that?2005?Cao?Fubing?and?Hu?Huilin?and?Yang?j,?Li?Shuhong?share?transfer?agreement?signed?at?the?same?time,?companies?also?signed?a?copy?of?the?transfer?agreement,?agreement:?Cao,?Yang?Fan?Company?shares?held?by?Hu?and?7.4?hectares?of?land?is?transferred?to?the?company.?Yang?Fan?company?the?agreement?is?stamped.?Yang?j,?Li?Shuhong?immediately?and?Cao?Hu?men?go?through?equity?transfer?procedures,?while?the?company?has?not?provided?for?in?the?agreement,?paid?shares?and?carry?out?the?agreement.
Shuangqiao?District?Court?during?the?trial?of?the?case,?Cao?Fubing?admitted?to?have?signed?two?agreements?in?court,?but?made?it?clear?that,?when?agreed,?the?first?payment,?who?will?go?through?the?procedures?of?alteration?to?the?business?sector.?Agreement?signed?with?the?company,?because?companies?have?not?paid?shares,?belonging?to?the?unilateral-default,?so?the?agreement?belong?to?void?the?contract.
On?August?28,?2006,?Shuangqiao?District?Court?made?a?verdict:?Cao?Fubing?signed?with?Hill′s?true?meaning?is?for?the?parties?to?the?agreement?said,?but?accord?condition?the?entry?into?force?of?the?agreement,?this?agreement?has?not?entered?into?force,?relevant?equity?legal?transfer?has?been?completed,?it?rejected?the?company′s?claim.
However,?the?sentence?is?not?about?to?end.
Lawsuit?from?the?"district"?to?"province"
After?the?first?instance?decision,?Hill?companies?objected,?appealed?to?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde.?This?time,?the?company?laughed:?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde?after?trial,?unlike?the?Shuangqiao?District?people′s?Court?judgments?are?given.
Chengde?in?the?homes?think,?Cao?Fubing?and?mountain?Cheng?company?signed?of?transfer?agreement?under?has?both?corporate?representative?signature,?so?transfer?agreement?under?legitimate?effective?should?continues?to?fulfil;?Yang?Fan?company?shareholders?Assembly?all?agreed?will?Cao,?and?Hu?of?shares?transfer?to?mountain?Cheng?company,?its?shareholders?lost?has?priority?purchased?right;?while?Cao,?and?Hu?both?has?will?shares?go?to?has?mountain?Cheng?company,?on?not?should?again?will?same?marked?of?transfer?to?Yang?Fan?company?shareholders,?violation?has?honest?credit?principles,?should?finds?internal?shareholders?Zhijian?of?shares?transfer?invalid.
On?December?14,?2006,?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde?second-instance?judgment?rendered:?reversal?of?a?verdict,?Cheng?and?Yang?fan?to?continue?to?honour?their?agreement?on?transfer?of?the?company.
Received?judgement,?Yang?j?immediately?to?Chengde?in?the?homes?applications?retrial,?reason?is:?while,?mountain?Cheng?company?and?no?performing;?on?the,?transfer?agreement?in?the?agreed,?"both?signature?sealed?and?in?Yang?Fan?Company?provides?company?shares?transfer?of?shareholders?will?resolution?Hou?entered?into?force",?but?this?copies?transfer?agreement?only?Yang?Fan?company?then?of?corporate?representative?Cao?Fubing?of?signature,?and?no?cover?seal,?and?Yang?Fan?company?shareholders?will?resolution?Shang?just?said?Cao,?and?Hu?will?shares?go?to?Yao,?and?Yuan,?Said?no?company?name?on?7.4?acres?of?the?land?transferred?to?the?company,?the?transfer?agreement?on?the?transfer?of?land?Act?had?not?been?shareholders?would?agree?that?the?transfer?agreement?was?invalid.
On?April?4,?2007,?the?judgement?of?the?Court?of?final?appeal?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde,?to?maintain?the?judgment?on?December?14,?2006.
Yanjiande?things?to?themselves?increasingly?disadvantaged,?Yang?j,?Chengde?city,?politics?and?Law?Committee.?"I?think?they?(Chengde)?is?a?denial?of?Justice,?so?I?wanted?to?find?a?place?of?reasoning.?"In?late?April?2007,?the?politics?and?Law?Committee,?gives?the?case?a?written?supervisory?comments?in?Chengde?city,?in?Chengde,?a?request?for?rehearing?the?case.
According?to?Chengde,?supervision?of?the?politics?and?Law?Committee?of?Chengde?after?resolution?of?the?Judicial?Committee,?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?in?accordance?with?legal?procedures,?to?the?Hebei?province?high?people′s?Court?sent?a?letter?to?request?a?retrial.
On?March?24,?2011,?the?Hebei?province?high?people′s?Court?ruled?that?directive?in?this?case?retrial?of?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde;?during?the?retrial,?suspend?the?execution?of?the?original?judgment.
On?March?26,?2012,?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?ruled?Chengde,?withdrawn?before?judgment,?Shuangqiao?District?Court?is?sent?back?for?retrial.
Since?then,?this?seemingly?simple?civil?cases?and?has?experienced?after?the?courts?of?district,?city?and?provincial?levels,?return?to?the?original?point-Shuangqiao?District?people′s?Court.
In?May?2013,?Shuangqiao?District?Court?started?again?in?that?case?to?trial.
However,?the?dual?court?verdict?this?time?quite?different?from?initial?conviction.
Shuangqiao?District?Court?found?that?Yang?Fan?Company?and?the?mountain?is?his?true?intentions?on?both?sides?said?the?company?transfer?agreement,?while?Yang?fan?all?the?shareholders?the?shareholders?′?Committee?of?the?company?form?a?unified?transfer?resolution;?transfer?agreements?as?specified?in?2.3?million?Yuan,?Chengde?hospital?in?2006?and?2007?of?the?second?instance?after?the?end?of?a?retrial,?based?on?judgments,?on?August?17,?2007,?presented?to?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde?transfer?is?payable.?Also?transfer?protocol?as?specified?in?the?premium?is?based?on?the?2005-year?land?price,?taking?into?account?the?premium?rise,?companies?should?be?adequate?compensation.
Shuangqiao?District?Court?judgement?of?first?instance?again:?first,?Cao?Fubing?transfer?agreements?with?the?company?continue?to?perform;?second,?Shan?Cheng?Yang?Fan?Company?has?more?than?4?million?yuan?of?the?company.
After?the?sentencing,?Yang?Fan?companies?and?companies?have?objected,?appealed?to?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde,?again?from?the?lawsuit?"district"?back?to?"the?market".
On?July?18,?2013,?the?second?retrial?in?the?case?of?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde,?and?judgement?of?Court?of?final?appeal?on?March?27,?2014:?first,?Cao?Fubing?transfer?agreements?with?the?company?continue?to?perform;?second,?revocation,?"Cheng?Yang?Fan?Company?has?more?than?4?million?yuan?of?the?company"?verdict.
Sun?Shijia?to?reporter?said,?from?2005?to?2014,?this?pieces?looks?does?not?complex?of?case,?on?such?a?hit?is?9?years,?eventually?of?results?is,?Yang?j?in?fulfil?has?equity?transfer?agreement,?delivered?has?shares?paragraph,?change?has?company?regulation,?to?business?sector?for?has?equity?change?registration,?and?investment?on?7.4?acres?land?for?demolition?compensation,?and?based?construction?zhihou,?Yang?Fan?Company?and?the?belongs?of?this?block?land,?a?night?Zhijian?became?has?others?of?"children".?Chengde?intermediate?people′s?Court?ruling?did?not?deal?with?the?aftermath,?including?Cao?Fubing,?Hu?Huilin?and?Yang?j,?Li?Shuhong?Yang?fan,?Chengde?City?real?estate?development?company,?signed?share?transfer?agreement?is?legally?valid??Effectiveness?of?its?business?sector?equity?change?registration??Yang?j?personal?stake?in?Yang?Fan?Company?how?to?deal??7.4?hectares?of?land?in?resettlement?and?compensation?upfront?infrastructure?investment?funds,?who?is?going?to?compensate?
Chengde?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?final?appeal?judgement?shows?that?transfer?agreement,?the?agreed?price?was?2.3?million?dollars,?company?has?been?paid,?ruled?by?the?judgment?of?the?first?instance?that?the?parties?continue?to?carry?out?the?agreement?and?without?undue.
In?this?regard,?Sun?Shijia?told?reporters,?before?this?purchase?price?was?not?in?accordance?with?the?contract′s?progress?meeting,?but?at?the?end?of?the?contract?period?of?two?years?after?the?performance?until?2007,?is?null?and?void.
"And?this?payment?is?based?on?the?2007?transfer?paid?by?verdict?of?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde,?Chengde?in?the?judgment?of?the?Court?in?2007,?but?is?found?to?be?invalid?by?Hebei?province?high?people′s?Court.?Companies?pay?transfer?Act,?violation?of?the?Hebei?province?high?people′s?Court?′?suspend?the?execution?of?the?original?judgment?′?ruling?is?illegal.?"Sun?Shijia?said.
Start?construction?dispute?blocks?prior?to?the?judgment
The?afternoon?of?March?19,?the?China?economic?weekly?reporter?drove?to?this?block?is?located?near?the?Chengde?mountain?7.4?acres?of?disputed?land.
Surprising?is?that?on?this?land?by?walls?shielding,?actually?there?are?several?excavators?at?work.
A?worker?who?work?at?the?site?told?reporters?that?"(engineering)?has?started,?were?digging?the?basement?now.?That′s?what?developer?boss.?"Worker′s?fingers,?the?reporter?found?high?on?a?hillock?in?the?distance,?a?few?people?discuss?things?like?the?leadership.
Reporters?stepped?forward?in?order?to?buy?a?house?in?the?name?of?one?of?the?men?struck?up?conversations.?The?man,?claiming?to?be?one?of?the?shareholders?of?the?company,?one?of?the?plaintiffs?in?the?case?Yuan?Erming.
Yuan?Erming?told?reporters,?currently?7.4?hectares?of?land?has?started?construction,?according?to?the?plan,?4?6-storey?homes?will?be?built,?"is?expected?for?completion?in?October?next?year,?in?December,?and?is?now?housing?reservations.?”
When?asked?about?the?development?and?sales?of?legal?formalities,?Yuan?Erming?said?that?all?formalities?are?readily?available,?"book?now,?buildings?built?after?the?three-tier,?to?the?relevant?departments?for?property?procedures.?”
The?night?of?March?26,?journalist?and?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde?has?also?appeared?as?talking?to?members?of?the?collegial?panel?of?three?judges?in?the?case,?all?three?said?the?courts?expressly?provides?that?before?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?did?not?make?final?judgements,?no?person?shall,?for?the?plot?to?be?under?construction.
A?judge?who?asked?not?to?be?named,?told?reporters?that?"they?did,?in?fact,?wants?to?form?a?fait?accompli,?when?when?you?reopen,?the?houses?have?been?sold?to?people,?and?how?this?land,?you?get?it?back.?”
Another?was?the?presiding?judge?in?the?case?also?said?that?last?month?he?specifically?go?to?the?plots?to?view?twice,?finding?has?indeed?started,?"I?think?this?violates?in?Hebei?province?high?people′s?Court?′?suspend?the?execution?of?the?original?judgment?′?ruling,?Yang?Fan?company?should?go?to?court?for?the?right?to?stop?such?illegal?acts.?”
The?afternoon?of?April?2,?original?Chengde,?Chengde?city,?Deputy?Secretary?of?the?politics?and?Law?Committee,?the?current?Prosecutor′s?Office?of?the?Deputy?Attorney-General?Cui?Yan?Hou,?accepted?an?interview?with?the?China?economic?weekly.
"At?the?time,?politics?and?Law?Committee,?writing?to?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde,?Chengde?city?supervision?requires?the?retrial?of?the?case.?By?understanding?how?we?find,?first?of?all,?this?is?not?complicated?civil?case,?did?not?expect?the?final?after?two?levels?of?courts?in?Chengde?city?has?5?times?before?and?after?the?trial?and,?secondly,?procedures,?the?case?where?the?subject?is?debatable.?"Cui?Yan?Hou?said.
"War"?when?did?it?end?
Reporter?visited?Chengde?homes?for?cover,?but?related?departments?to?"leadership?is?not"?turned?down?journalists?′?requests?for?interviews.
Subsequently,?the?China?economic?weekly,?sent?to?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde,?Hebei?province?High?Court?interview,?reply?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde?said,?has?been?the?ultimate?judge?in?the?case,?all?on?a?second?retrial?verdict?of?the?intermediate?people′s?Court?of?Chengde′s?"the?Court?considers?it"?prevail,?the?other?does?not?respond.
On?April?10,?the?Yuan?Erming?journalist?asked?about?start?construction,?a?Yuan?Erming?admits?that?the?plot?does?without?a?construction?permit?or?pre-sale?permit,?so?don′t?sign?a?formal?purchase?contract,?but?you?can?make?a?deposit?first.
Sun?Shijia?is?think,?mountain?Cheng?company?this?a?acts?belonging?to?no?card?starts,?and?exists?violation?sales?of?acts,?and,?also?contrary?to?has?Hebei?province?high?homes?of?ruled,?"they?is?wanted?to?caused?established?facts,?once?House?sold?to?has,?this?lawsuit?on?into?has?Yang?Fan?Company?and?buy?room?people?of?disputes,?mountain?Cheng?company?on?security?to?will?this?block?to?Rob?to?has?hands.?”
For?the?final,?while?unconvinced,?Yang?j?also?has?some?doubts,?he?told?reporters,?not?to?say?the?verdict?is?fair,?"I?would?like?to?know,?with?our?Cao?Fubing,?Hu?Huilin?the?Chengde?city,?Yang?fan,?to?enter?into?and?perform?real?estate?company?share?transfer?agreement?is?legally?valid??According?to?the?court?verdict,?I?am?Yang?Fan?what?the?company?is,?what?kind?of?identity?in?the?future??We?invest?upfront?fees?who?bear??Millions?of?shares?price?I?paid?Cao?Fubing?in?vain??Gonna?give?a?statement??”
Yang?j,?told?reporters?he?has?organized?the?material?brought?to?Hebei?province?High?Court?retrial,?"I?think?everything?is?legal,?I?will?seek?justice?in?cases?which?go?to?the?horizon.?”
As?of?press,?still?on?7.4?acres?of?land?with?noisy?machinery,?pre-sale?housing?are?booming.?Land?grab?while?it?lasted?9?years,?also?appears?to?be?no?sign?of?a?truce.
The?China?economic?weekly?reporter?Cui?Xiaolin?Liu?Debing?Liu?Yonggang?|?Chengde,?Hebei?province?reported
02:03?on?April?29,?2014?People′s?daily?online
(
承德避暑山庄附近7.4亩开发用地纠纷调查|承德避暑山庄|土地纠纷_新闻资讯
近日，河北承德一起持续9年之久、经市区两级法院先后审理5次的土地纠纷案引起了社会关注。
由于历时9年诉讼，案件审理过程异常繁复，该案被告方的代理律师孙世嘉用“娶媳妇”打起了比喻，“就好比你喜欢一个女孩子，两个人相爱了，领证了，也办了婚礼，甚至还生了孩子，小日子过得挺美。忽然有一个人跑到法院去告状，说这桩婚姻是非法的，新媳妇和孩子应该归他所有。这个人告状的理由，是手里有一封当初与新媳妇谈恋爱时的‘情书’。这很荒唐是不是？但更荒唐的是，法院居然在你出示了合法的结婚证及相关证明的情况下，竟然判决你的婚姻无效，你的媳妇和孩子归那个人所有……”
近日，《中国经济周刊》记者赶赴承德，就此案件进行采访、调查。
7.4亩土地成为被抢“新娘”
孙世嘉所说的“娶媳妇案”，其实是一起股权连带土地开发权纠纷案。案件原告方为承德市山诚房地产开发有限公司(下称“山诚公司”)股东姚成江(法人代表)、袁二明；被告方为承德市杨帆房地产开发有限公司(下称“杨帆公司”)法人代表杨军。
杨帆公司成立之初，共有4个股东，当时的法人代表叫曹福兵，持股结构为曹福兵占60%，杨军占8.3%，李淑红占11.7%，胡会林占20%。
2004年，杨帆公司成立不久，就通过招拍挂取得了承德避暑山庄附近一宗7.4亩土地的开发建设权。据公司现法人代表杨军介绍，这宗土地是杨帆公司名下唯一的经营财产，“2004年前后，承德房地产市场低迷，公司拥有开发建设权的这7.4亩土地，由于地段相对偏僻，当时并不值钱。”
据杨军介绍，2005年4月16日，杨帆公司召开临时股东会，曹福兵、胡会林要求退出杨帆公司，并转让二人在杨帆公司持有的股份。经全体股东同意，曹福兵将其所持60%股份转让给杨军，胡会林将其所持20%股份转让给李淑红，当日便形成了临时股东会决议。
两天以后的2005年4月18日，曹福兵、胡会林与杨军、李淑红分别签订了《承德市杨帆房地产开发有限公司股份转让协议书》。随后，股权转让手续完成，并到当地工商部门进行了股权变更登记。
自此，杨军成为公司大股东和法人代表，按照孙世嘉的比喻，此时，杨军把“媳妇”(公司股权)领回了家，并拥有了唯一的“孩子”(7.4亩开发用地)。
随后的时间里，杨帆公司在杨军的带领下，完成了7.4亩土地上住户的拆迁补偿工作，并着手进行土地平整与规划。
2006年3月，杨军忽然接到承德市双桥区人民法院的传票，自此，杨军遭遇了一场历时9年的官司。
根据传票，杨军得知，承德当地的山诚公司把自己告上了法庭，称山诚公司应该拥有一年前曹福兵、胡会林持有的共80%的杨帆公司股权，同时拥有这块7.4亩土地的开发建设权。
双桥区法院相关判决书显示，2005年曹福兵和胡会林在与杨军、李淑红签署股份转让协议的同时，与山诚公司也签署了一份《转让协议》，协议称：曹、胡将所持杨帆公司股份和7.4亩土地转让给山诚公司。该协议杨帆公司没有盖章。当时曹胡二人与杨军、李淑红立即办理了股权转让手续，而山诚公司却并没有按照协议规定，按期支付股价款及履行协议。
双桥区法院对此案进行审理期间，曹福兵当庭承认曾签署两份协议，但明确表示，当时说好，谁先付款，谁就到工商部门办理变更手续。与山诚公司签署的协议，因山诚公司没有按期支付股价款，属于单方面违约，故该协议属于无效合同。
2006年8月28日，双桥区法院做出一审判决：曹福兵与山诚公司签订的协议是双方当事人真实意思表示，但是因协议中约定的生效条件未成就，因此该协议未生效，相关股权现已合法转让完毕，故驳回山诚公司的诉讼请求。
然而该宣判并未为此事划上句号。
官司从“区”打到“省”
一审判决后，山诚公司不服，向承德中院提起上诉。这一次，山诚公司笑了：承德中院经审理，给出了与双桥区人民法院不一样的判决。
承德中院认为，曹福兵与山诚公司签订的《转让协议》有双方法人代表签字，故《转让协议》合法有效应继续履行；杨帆公司股东大会全体同意将曹、胡的股份转让给山诚公司，其股东丧失了优先购买权；同时曹、胡既已将股份转让给了山诚公司，就不应再将同一标的转让给杨帆公司股东，违反了诚实信用原则，应认定内部股东之间的股份转让无效。
2006年12月14日，承德中院作出二审判决：撤销了一审判决，山诚公司与杨帆公司继续履行《转让协议》。
接到判决书，杨军随即向承德中院申请再审，理由是：一方面，山诚公司并没有履约；另一方面，转让协议中约定，“双方签字盖章并在杨帆公司提供公司股份转让的股东会决议后生效”，但是这份转让协议只有杨帆公司当时的法人代表曹福兵的签字，并没有盖公章，而且杨帆公司股东会决议上只是说曹、胡将股份转让给姚、袁，绝没有说将公司名下7.4亩土地转让给山诚公司，即转让协议上转让土地的行为并没有经过股东会同意，这一转让协议是无效的。
2007年4月4日，承德中院作出终审判决，维持该院于2006年12月14日作出的判决。
眼见得事情对自己越来越不利，杨军想到了承德市政法委。“我觉得他们(承德中院)太有失公道，所以我想找个能说理的地方。”2007年4月下旬，承德市政法委对于该案给出书面督查意见，要求承德中院对本案进行再审。
根据承德市政法委的督查意见，承德中院按照法定程序经审判委员会决议后，向河北省高院致函请求再审。
2011年3月24日，河北省高院裁定：本案指令承德中院再审；再审期间，中止原判决的执行。
2012年3月26日，承德中院做出裁定，撤销之前的判决，发回双桥区法院重审。
自此，这件看似简单的民事案件，在经历了区、市、省三级法院后，再度回到了原点——双桥区人民法院。
2013年5月，双桥区法院启动该案的再次审理程序。
然而，双桥法院这次的判决结果与初次判决大不相同。
双桥区法院认为，杨帆公司与山诚公司的转让协议是双方真实意思表示；同时，杨帆公司股东会全体股东形成统一转让的决议；转让协议中约定的230万元，在承德中院2006年二审和2007年再审结束后，依据判决，山诚公司于2007年8月17日向承德中院提交了应交付的转让款。同时转让协议中约定的地价款是基于2005年的土地价格，考虑到地价升值，山诚公司应适当补偿。
双桥区法院再次作出一审判决：一、曹福兵与山诚公司签订的转让协议继续履行；二、山诚公司支付杨帆公司400余万元。
宣判后，杨帆公司和山诚公司均不服，向承德中院提出上诉，官司再度从“区”打回了“市”。
2013年7月18日，承德中院第二次再审此案，并于2014年3月27日作出终审判决：一、曹福兵与山诚公司签订的转让协议继续履行；二、撤销“山诚公司支付杨帆公司400余万元”的判决。
孙世嘉向记者表示，从2005年到2014年，这件看起来并不复杂的案子，就这样一打就是9年，最终的结果是，杨军在履行了股权转让协议，交付了股价款，变更了公司章程，到工商部门进行了股权变更登记，并投资对7.4亩土地进行拆迁补偿、基础建设之后，杨帆公司及所属的这块土地，一夜之间成为了别人的“孩子”。而承德中院的判决，并未涉及相关的善后事宜，如当初曹福兵、胡会林与杨军、李淑红签订的《承德市杨帆房地产开发有限公司股份转让协议书》是否合法有效？其到工商部门进行股权变更登记是否有效？杨军个人在杨帆公司的股权如何处置？7.4亩土地的拆迁安置及前期基础设施建设投入资金如何补偿，谁来补偿？
承德中院终审判决书显示：转让协议中约定的230万元价款，山诚公司已经支付，因此一审判决判令双方当事人继续履行协议并无不当。
对此，孙世嘉向记者透露，这一价款之前并未按照合同约定的进度履行，而是在合同履行期结束两年后即2007年才履行，是无效行为。
“而且这一付款行为是根据2007年承德中院的判决支付的转让款，但承德中院2007年的判决已被河北省高院认定无效。故山诚公司的支付转让款的行为，违反了河北省高院的‘中止原判决的执行’的裁定，是违法行为。”孙世嘉说。
纠纷地块已于判决前开工建设
3月19日下午，《中国经济周刊》记者驱车来到这块位于承德避暑山庄附近的7.4亩争议地块。
令人意外的是，这片由围墙遮挡的土地上，竟然已经有数台挖掘机在作业。
一位在工地干活儿的工人告诉记者，“(工程)已经开工了，现在在挖地下室。那就是开发商老板。”顺着工人的手指，记者发现远处高岗上，几个领导模样的人正在商谈事情。
记者走上前去，以买房为名同其中一位男子交谈起来。该男子自称是山诚公司股东之一、该案原告之一袁二明。
袁二明向记者表示，目前这块7.4亩土地已经开工建设，按照规划，将建设4栋6层高的商住房，“预计明年10月竣工，12月份入住，现已接受房屋预订。”
当问及开发及销售合法手续时，袁二明表示所有手续一应俱全，“现在预订，楼房盖起三层后，就可以到相关部门办理产权手续了。”
3月26日晚，记者与承德中院曾作为该案合议庭成员的三位法官交谈，三人均表示，法院明确规定，在中院没有作出终审判决之前，任何人不得对该地块进行开工建设。
其中一位不愿透露姓名的法官向记者表示，“他们这样做，其实就是想形成既定事实，当你翻案时，房子已卖给老百姓了，再怎么样，这块地你也要不回来了。”
另一位曾主审过该案的法官也表示，最近一个月，他曾两次专门跑到该地块去查看，发现确实已经在开工了，“我觉得这一行为违反了河北省高院的‘中止原判决的执行’的裁定，杨帆公司应该去法院申请权利，制止这种非法行为。”
4月2日下午，原承德市政法委副书记、现任承德市检察院常务副检察长的崔雁侯，接受了《中国经济周刊》的采访。
“当时，承德市政法委向承德中院发出书面督查意见，要求对本案再审。通过了解我们发现，首先，这是一起并不复杂的民事诉讼案件，没想到却最终经过了承德市两级法院前后共5次审理；其次，该案程序、主体确有值得商榷的地方。”崔雁侯说。
“战争”何时结束？
记者曾前往承德中院进行采访，但相关部门人员以“领导不在”为由拒绝了记者的采访请求。
随后，《中国经济周刊》向承德中院及河北省高院发送采访函，承德中院回复称，该案已经过最终裁判，一切以承德中院第二次再审判决书上的“本院认为”内容为准，其他的不作回应。
4月10日，记者向袁二明询问开工建设一事，袁二明坦言，这一地块确实没有施工证，也没有预售证，所以目前还不能签订正式的购房合同，但是可以先交订金。
孙世嘉则认为，山诚公司这一行为属于无证开工，并且存在违规销售的行为，而且，也违背了河北省高院的裁定，“他们就是想造成既定事实，一旦房子卖出去了，这个官司就成了杨帆公司与买房人的纠纷，山诚公司就安全地将这块地抢到了手中。”
对于终审判决，在不服气的同时，杨军也有一些疑惑，他向记者表示，且不说判决结果是否公正，“我想知道，当初我们与曹福兵、胡会林签订并履行的《承德市杨帆房地产开发有限公司股份转让协议书》是否合法有效？根据法院判决结果，今后我在杨帆公司到底是个什么身份？我们投入的前期费用谁来承担？当初我付给曹福兵的几百万股价款就算白给了？是不是得给个说法？”
杨军向记者表示，他已组织材料向河北省高院提起再审，“我觉得我们一切手续都是合法的，官司打到天边我都要讨回公道。”
截至记者发稿，这7.4亩土地上依然机器轰鸣，房屋预售也异常火爆。而这起历时9年的土地争夺战，似乎也还没有停战的迹象。
《中国经济周刊》?记者?崔晓林?刘德炳?刘永刚|河北承德报道
2014年04月29日02:03
人民网
)
