The case of 'customer escaped debt of 5 billion': There was a similar verdict

Recently, public opinion strongly agrees with the verdict of the People's Court of Region 7 (HCMC) declaring that the customer who bought the real estate project won after being sued by VPBank...

Illustration from Chat GPT

But before that in 2024, the People's Court of Cau Giay District ( Hanoi ) also announced a similar verdict. The only difference is that this time the plaintiff is the customer.

Almost paid for the apartment but the project is still an empty land

According to the case file, on February 28, 2022, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy G. was introduced by R. Company to buy a resort apartment in Phu Quoc invested by MT Group.

To buy an apartment in this project, on March 9, 2022, Ms. G. received the transfer of the right to negotiate the sale and purchase agreement (V103) with another individual, Mr. Truong Vu Th..

However, when making the first deposit (VND 500 million), Ms. G. transferred money to the account of Company R. (identified as a real estate brokerage company for MT Group). According to the agreement between Ms. G. and Mr. Th., Mr. Th. transferred all of his rights and obligations according to document V103 to Ms. G.

After signing this agreement, Ms. G transferred the next deposit to S. Real Estate Company (abbreviated as S. Company) - the unit assigned by the project investor, MT Group, to act as a broker and survey the needs of customers buying real estate.

After that, Ms. G. paid five deposits with the amount of more than 19 billion VND (of which Ms. G.'s own capital was 2.4 billion VND and the bank loan was 16.9 billion VND).

However, through the media, Ms. G. learned that a part of the project originated from national defense land, so the project investor (MT Group) has not completed the legal procedures on land to be eligible for sale.

At the time the case was brought to trial, the current status of the project was an empty land with incomplete infrastructure and no construction on the land.

After that, Ms. G. came to meet and sent emails many times requesting to provide legal documents proving that the project was qualified for business and to sign a sales contract, but Company S. did not meet the request.

Then, Company S. sent an email to unilaterally terminate the agreement and announced that it would not refund the entire deposit that Ms. G. had paid (2.4 billion VND).

Therefore, Ms. G. filed a lawsuit against Company S. in court, requesting to cancel all deposit agreements signed with Company R., the deposit agreement transfer document signed with Mr. Th. (Company S.'s first customer), and to declare the credit contract Ms. G. signed with the bank to be canceled.

At court, Ms. G. claimed that Mr. Truong Vu Th. and Company S. had provided incomplete and untrue information about the agreement document No. V103 signed by Mr. Th. with Company S. on
December 13, 2021. In addition, Company S. also provided incomplete and untrue information about the legal status of the project.

Brokerage firm but receives money from asset sales

During the debate at the trial, the representative of the trial panel clarified that Company S. was only appointed by MT Company (investor) to act as a brokerage unit, consulting and introducing real estate products to customers with the aim of helping customers choose products that suit their needs.

At the trial, the representative of Company S. presented a document with the MT Company's stamp stating: "Company S. will be responsible for consulting, searching, introducing and brokering real estate for business, marketing, introducing, and supporting investors and customers in carrying out procedures related to purchasing real estate at the project."

The Trial Panel believes that in this document there is no content showing that the investor allows Company S. to receive deposits for assets, record the value of assets as well as the content that the parties have agreed with each other.

This is contrary to the provisions of law on the rights of civil transaction subjects, this is an act that exceeds the scope of permission of the investor in the above document.

Through questioning at the trial, the defendant S. Company could not provide any additional documents and evidence to show that the defendant had the right to execute the deposit and deposit acceptance contract transaction, nor was there any authorization document from the investor for S. Company to have the right to issue a document inviting Ms. G. to sign the sales contract.

Thus, the qualification to sign the deposit receipt as well as the deposit transaction of Company S. is against the law.

In addition, at the time Company S. notified Ms. G. to sign the contract, it should be understood that the project had met all the conditions to open for sale.

However, at the trial, the representative of Company S. could not present any legal documents proving that at the time of issuing the notice for the transfer of land use rights in December 2022, the investor of this project had sufficient conditions to open for sale.

Transactions are void due to illegality

From the above developments, the court held that Company R. had the function of real estate brokerage and consulting, and this company approved Ms. G. to deposit to buy apartment coded V103 with an area of ​​216 square meters at the project in Phu Quoc with a transfer value of more than 24.2 billion VND.

However, after consideration, the project is planned to be located in Ward A (Phu Quoc City, Kien Giang Province) and according to schedule, by the second quarter of 2024, the project will construct architectural works and come into operation.

Thus, at the time of announcement on the portal of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (still existing at the time of trial), this project was not eligible for sale and was not eligible to receive deposits.

Company R. recorded in the deposit agreement that it approved Party B (Ms. G.) to deposit to buy a specific apartment named V103, with an area of ​​216 square meters and a transfer value that is contrary to the provisions of law on apartment transfer.

In addition, during the entire litigation process, R. Company failed to prove its right to be allowed by the investor to conduct brokerage consulting and receive deposits for the above project with customers. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to file a lawsuit is completely well-founded and in accordance with the provisions of law.

Ms. G. made a deposit transaction with Company R., but Company S. continued to transfer the right to register to buy the above property. Thus, for the same property, two companies took responsibility for Ms. G.

The trial panel determined: The transfer value that Ms. G. agreed with Company R. was the total value of the real estate was 24.2 billion VND.

Then, Company S. recorded the deposit of 24.2 billion VND, which is contrary to the law because this cannot be considered an amount of money to ensure the performance of the contract but the entire value of the contract. The contract can only be performed when the transfer of the property can be carried out.

At the same time, Company S. does not have the authority to sign the contract of transfer or sale of assets for the above project because it is not the investor. The fact that Company S. stands up to receive the money and negotiate the transaction with Ms. G. is completely against the law.

"Therefore, these agreements must be declared completely invalid, and the plaintiff's lawsuit is completely legitimate," the panel of judges emphasized.

Credit contract canceled and 2 companies must pay plaintiff

Based on the above developments and assessments, the panel of judges declared the transfer document of agreement V103 between Ms. G. and Mr. Th. to be completely invalid; the agreement V103 signed between Mr. Th. and Company S. to be completely invalid; and the deposit agreement signed between Ms. G. and Company R. to be completely invalid.

From these invalid transactions, the court ordered Company R. to pay Ms. G. 500 million with interest of 118 million.

Company S. must repay Ms. G. the principal of 1.9 billion with interest of 448 million.

Because the above contracts were invalid, the credit contract that Ms. G. signed with the bank was also invalid. However, by the time of the trial, Company S. had repaid the entire amount of money that Ms. G. signed to borrow from the bank, so there was no need to deal with the consequences.

HA CHAU

Source: https://tuoitre.vn/vu-khach-hang-thoat-khoan-no-5-ti-da-co-mot-ban-an-tuong-tu-20251008232456275.htm