On November 8, the Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development jointly issued a typical case of installing elevators in existing residential buildings in old communities. Recently, one of the cases "the old man opposed the installation of elevators and wanted to be rejected by the whole building" rushed to the hot search, causing heated discussion.
Text irrelevant
The owner of a 9-storey residential building in a residential area in Liwan District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province discussed the installation of elevators from 2017 to 2018, and 32 of the 44 owners agreed. Guo mou, the owner who lives on the 3rd floor and is nearly 80 years old, did not participate in the capital contribution due to objection. After the elevator was put into use, Guo mou proposed to use the elevator after paying the corresponding fund-raising funds. however, 32 owners believed that Guo mou had objections to the installation of the elevator in the early stage, which delayed the installation of the elevator for more than a year and opposed its use of the elevator. Guo filed a lawsuit with the people's court, requesting confirmation that he has the same rights and obligations as 32 owners for the newly-built elevators after paying 10077 yuan according to the financing plan for the installation of elevators in the previous period.
The People's Court of Liwan District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province held that the elevator involved in the case was a common part of the building in terms of the use attribute, and Guo and other owners had the right to use and jointly manage the elevator. Guo's use of the elevator is not a matter that should be jointly decided by the owners as stipulated by relevant laws and judicial interpretations, and will not cause damage to the legal rights of other owners to use the elevator, so it does not require the consent of the majority of owners. According to the principle of fairness, the use of elevators should be subject to the payment of fund-raising, so.After the court ordered Guo to pay for the additional elevator fund-raising, the representative of the owner of the house provided Guo with an elevator card for him to use in the elevator.. After the sentencing, 32 owners appealed. The Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.
The case points out that the legal principles and reasons involved in the installation of elevators are complicated, and neighbors should have more understanding and tolerance, adhere to the principles of voluntary equality, friendly consultation and fairness, and jointly create a harmonious and comfortable living environment. Guo is 80 years old and does have an objective need to use the elevator. It is within the scope of normal expression of opinions to raise objections during the installation of the elevator. If other owners refuse to use the elevator for the elderly, it is not in line with the integrity and friendliness of socialism. Core values. If other owners think that Guo's obstruction of the elevator installation has caused losses to them, they can claim their rights in another case, but they cannot refuse Guo to use the elevator after paying the fund-raising.
Source: China Economic Net
If there is infringement, contact Li delete