Recently, the people's Court of suixian County, Henan Province concluded a dispute caused by "one house and two sales". The court finally ruled that the developer and Pei, a natural person of cooperative development, returned the money of the buyer and compensated 150000 yuan for the loss. A decoration company in Henan Province and a development company in suixian County signed an agreement on October 8, 2013, which agreed that the two sides would cooperate to develop a new rural central community project located in a place in suixian County, which would be provided with land by a development company in suixian County, funded by a decoration company in Henan Province, and the profits would be shared. The new rural central community project is divided into area a and area B. in the actual development process, a decoration company in Henan actually invested in the development of area a, which is sold and charged for the house in the name of a development company in suixian county. Area B of the community project is jointly developed by a development company in suixian county and Pei. A development company in suixian county provides land and Pei actually contributes to the construction. Pei sells it and collects the house money in the name of a development company in suixian county. On July 4, 2018, Pei signed a sales contract with Wu in the name of a development company in suixian county. Wu purchased two sets of properties in area B of the project at the price of 400000 yuan. Wu delivered the purchase price of 250000 yuan to Pei on July 4, 2018 and the remaining 150000 yuan to Pei on October 26, 2019. Wu found that the two houses he purchased were sold to others as early as February 10, 2018, and Wu could not actually obtain the real estate involved in the case, so he sued to the court to request the termination of the house sales contract. A decoration company in Henan, a development company in suixian county and Pei jointly returned the house purchase money, and assumed the liability of twice the paid house purchase money and decoration losses. After the trial, Wu reached a private settlement with the defendant Pei on the No. 20 property in area B involved in the case, and requested the court not to deal with the sales contract of No. 20 property temporarily, which was approved by the court. After hearing the case, the court held that a development company in suixian county and Pei jointly developed the real estate located in zone B of the new rural Central Community Project in suixian county. A development company in suixian County provided construction land, and Pei actually contributed. Later, Pei signed a real estate sales contract with Wu in the name of a development company in suixian county. The contract is the true intention of both parties and does not violate the provisions of the law, It is legally binding on both parties, and the parties shall perform their respective obligations in accordance with the agreement. After Wu purchased the real estate involved in the case, he found that the real estate had been sold to others in the name of a development company in suixian County, resulting in the failure to realize the purpose of the contract. Wu has the right to request the termination of the contract. After the termination of the contract, if it has not been performed, the performance shall be terminated; If the contract has been performed, the parties may, according to the performance and the nature of the contract, demand restitution and take other remedial measures, and have the right to claim compensation for the losses. Pei and a development company in suixian county are the defaulting parties. They should return the house purchase price and bear the liability of compensation no more than twice the paid house purchase price. Wu did not provide sufficient and effective evidence to prove his decoration loss, and this part of the request was not supported. In this case, a decoration company in Henan Province is not the counterpart of the real estate sales contract involved in the case in form, nor is it the investment developer of the real estate involved in the case in fact, and a decoration company in Henan Province should not bear responsibility. In the final judgment of the first instance of the court, the house sales contract of No. 25 real estate in area B involved in the case was terminated; Pei and a development company in suixian county jointly returned 200000 yuan of Wu's house purchase price and compensated Wu for 150000 yuan of losses; Reject Wu's claim against a decoration company in Henan and other claims. Pei and a development company in suixian County refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed. The court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. (NIE song) ■ judge's statement ■ This case is jointly developed by a natural person and a real estate developer. The natural person actually contributes and the real estate developer provides construction land. The two sides have agreed on the profit distribution. After the house is completed, the natural person signs a house sales contract in the name of the real estate developer for external sales and collects the house money. However, in the process of sales, the real estate involved in the case is "one house and two sales", As a result, the buyer cannot actually obtain the right to the house, which leads to litigation. Both parties have objections to the effectiveness of the contract, the subject of responsibility and the way of responsibility. From the perspective of contract effectiveness, in this case, Wu signed a real estate sales contract with PEI and a development company in suixian county. The real estate involved is located in a new rural Central Community in suixian county. The real estate is not a traditional commercial house. Wu is a member of the community. Wu purchases the real estate on the land of the community, and there is no case that the contract is invalid. Both parties shall perform their obligations in accordance with the contract. The house property No. 25 in Block B purchased by Wu cannot be occupied due to "one house and two sales", so that the purpose of the contract cannot be realized. According to the law, Wu has the right to request the termination of the contract. From the perspective of the subject of responsibility, the real estate No. 25 in zone B of the community project purchased by Wu was jointly developed by a development company in suixian county and Pei, and Pei and the defendant suixian development company should be jointly responsible. According to the principle of contract relativity, Wu, Pei and a development company in suixian county can not provide evidence to prove that a decoration company in Henan Province actually participated in the investment and development of the real estate involved. From the perspective of contract form, it is not the subject of contract signing, and a decoration company in Henan Province should not bear responsibility. From the perspective of responsibility bearing mode, Wu has the right to require Pei and a development company in suixian county to return the paid house purchase price and bear the loss of no more than twice the house purchase price. Although the real estate involved in the case is not a commercial house in the traditional sense, Pei and a development company in suixian county are the defaulting parties and should compensate Wu for his losses. Referring to the provisions of Article 8 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of disputes over commercial housing sales contracts, Pei and a development company in suixian county shall not only be liable for the return of housing funds, but also be liable for compensation for losses. (outlook new era)