The owner questioned the parking space rental in wechat group and was sued by the developer for a claim of 500000 yuan

 The owner questioned the parking space rental in wechat group and was sued by the developer for a claim of 500000 yuan

The new express reporter learned yesterday that the owners of a small area in Guangzhou were sued by the developers for questioning the high price and unclear property rights of the developers parking space rental. In response to this case, Guangzhou Internet court has made a judgment, rejecting the developers claim, and the judgment has come into effect.

Guangzhou zhongzhan Investment Holding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as zhongzhan company) is a developer located in xiangsongju community, Jinma, Zengcheng District, Guangzhou City (hereinafter referred to as xiangsongju community). On August 2, 2018, zhongzhan company posted the car rental plan on the bulletin board at the entrance of the property management center of the community, and publicized the location, quantity, area, ratio, price, etc. of the car rental to the community owners Information.

Guimou, Panmou and LiMou are the owners of xiangsongju community. The three people have successively raised objections to the above parking space rental scheme in the wechat group named xiangsongju United Group, pointing out that there are problems such as unclear parking space property rights, unreasonable matching and high price.

In the opinion of China Exhibition Corporation, the above accusations of GUI, pan and Li belong to fictitious facts, which directly affect the willingness of the owners of the community to purchase parking spaces and infringe the reputation right of China Exhibition Corporation. Therefore, the three owners are required to jointly bear the tort liability and claim for economic loss of 500000 yuan.

Reporters learned that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether guimou, Panmou and LiMou violated the reputation right of China Exhibition Corporation when they published their opinions in xiangsongju United Group?

After hearing, Guangzhou Internet court held that the reputation right of legal person is protected by law. Whether the network users constitute the infringement of the reputation right of legal person by using information network should be recognized from four aspects: whether the network users adopt defamation, defamation and other means, whether the reputation of legal person is damaged, whether there is causal relationship between illegal acts and the consequences of damage, and whether there is subjective fault of the network users Fixed. Zhongzhan company claims that the three owners behavior in the case of xiangsongju Tuanjie group violated their reputation right, lacking factual and legal basis.

The Guangzhou Internet court reminded that for the purpose of safeguarding rights, the owners made critical comments on the specific behaviors of developers in the wechat group of owners. If the comments did not maliciously distort the facts, even if there were misunderstandings about the behaviors of developers, it would not constitute a reputation infringement on developers. If the owner maliciously distorts the facts and makes rumors in the evaluation process, and it is enough to make other owners in wechat group have a wrong understanding of the developers economic strength, operating conditions and other economic capabilities, the criticism should not be considered as good faith.

In addition, if the business conduct carried out by the developer is related to the immediate interests of the owner, it should fully accept the owners query and criticism, and take appropriate measures to eliminate its doubts. The court does not encourage developers to limit the right of owners to raise reasonable questions and criticize by bringing a lawsuit of tort damages against individual sharp words owners.

On the determination of non infringement from three aspects

First of all, the case related to xiangsongju solidarity group was spontaneously formed by the owners of the community. As the owners of the community, the three defendants were the publicity objects of the case related to the parking space rental and sale plan. The specific content of the parking space rental and sale plan related to the interests of all the owners including the three defendants. Therefore, the three owners in the wechat group involved in the case raised objections to and evaluated the relevant contents of the parking space rental scheme, and discussed with other community owners in the group. Subjectively, it was for the purpose of safeguarding the owners own rights and interests, and there was no malice.

In addition, the parking space rental and sale plan involved in the case also allows the owners of the community to reflect the objection content to China exhibition company or Guangzhou Zengcheng district housing and Construction Bureau during the publicity period.

Secondly, according to the contents of the statements made by the three defendants, they are all proposed for the specific contents related to the number of parking spaces, the proportion of rental and sale, the rental price and so on in the parking space rental and sale plan, without obvious insulting and derogatory terms, and the contents of the statements do not involve the derogation and misleading of the economic strength, operating conditions and other economic capabilities of China Development Corporation.

Thirdly, the basis for China exhibition to claim the damage of its reputation right is the fact that two owners applied for withdrawing the preparation after subscribing for the parking space involved in the case. However, on August 15, 2019, at the online court hearing, it was confirmed that 260 parking spaces in the case had been sold, and 183 of them were not sold. There was no evidence that the parking spaces in the case could not be sold normally due to the actions of three defendants, so the above claims of China Exhibition lacked the factual basis.

(function() {(window. Slotbydup = window. Slotbydup| []). Push ({ID: u5811557, container: ssp_, async: true});}) ()); source: new express author: he Shengting, editor in charge: huachengyu