[Case Summary]This case is an action for enforcement objection filed by the applicant for enforcement. Due to the dispute over the demolition benefits between Zhang ** and Wang **, the court ruled that Wang ** should pay 19,615,19.84 yuan. During the enforcement process, the court seized the house located at Unit 5, Building 6, Room 1001, of a certain residential area in Haidian District, Beijing, which was registered under Wang **'s name on May 28, 2018. However, the house had already been purchased by Liu ** for 3.65 million yuan on March 7, 2014 and was actually occupied by her. Zhang ** filed an action for enforcement objection, requesting that the enforcement be allowed. Liu ** entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhu GuiyingThe lawyer, in accordance with Article 28 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objections and Review Cases by the People's Courts", constructed an evidence chain around the four elements of signing the contract before the seizure, lawful possession, full payment, and failure to transfer ownership for reasons beyond their own control. The first-instance court rejected Zhang's claim, and the second-instance court (Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court) upheld the original judgment in accordance with Article 177 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Liu won both trials and successfully avoided forced execution and protected her house.

I. Review of the case

"I bought a resettlement housing unit but it was sealed off by the court before the transfer of ownership. What should I do?" "How can I file a lawsuit against enforcement objections to protect my house?" These are the most worrying questions faced by many real estate buyers when they are subject to forced execution. Zhang ** and Wang ** had a dispute over the demolition benefits. In 2016, Zhang ** sued Wang ** for payment of demolition benefits of over 1.96 million yuan. The court ruled that Wang ** should pay the eviction compensation and the resettlement housing discounted price totaling 1,961,519.84 yuan. Wang ** appealed, and the second-instance court upheld the original judgment. Since Wang ** failed to voluntarily comply with the judgment, Zhang ** applied for forced execution. On May 28, 2018, the court issued an enforcement ruling, sealing off the house involved in the case - Room 1001, Unit 5, Building 6, a certain residential area in Haidian District, Beijing, which was registered under Wang **'s name.

However, the house had already been purchased and actually lived in by Liu ***. Liu *** raised an objection to the enforcement, claiming that he signed a house purchase contract with Wang *** through an intermediary company on March 7, 2014, and purchased the house in question for 3.65 million yuan. He had already paid most of the purchase price and actually occupied and used the house. In 2025, the court issued a ruling on the objection to the enforcement, supporting Liu's objection and suspending the enforcement of the house in question.

Zhang * * * disagreed with this and filed a lawsuit against the applicant for enforcement, requesting permission to enforce the house involved in the case. Liu * * * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him/her.Zhu GuiyinThe lawyer represented the client in this case, and a lawsuit regarding "whether the buyer can exclude the forced execution" was initiated accordingly.

II. The focus of the case

  • Is Liu * * * eligible for the four conditions stipulated in Article 28 of the "Regulations on Objections and Reconsideration of Enforcement", and does he/she enjoy civil rights and interests sufficient to preclude forced enforcement?
  • The validity of the house sale and purchase contract, the authenticity of the payment, the actual possession before the seizure, and whether the reasons for the failure to transfer ownership can withstand the review of the second instance.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The applicant for enforcement, Zhang **, argued that: the house involved in the case was not registered under Wang **'s name, which did not meet the prerequisites for the application of Article 28 of the "Regulations on Enforcement Objections and Reconsideration"; the authenticity and validity of Liu **'s and Wang **'s house purchase contract were questionable; the core provisions of the contract did not take effect because the house had not obtained a property ownership certificate; the transaction price was abnormal, the down payment ratio was too low, and the payer did not match the receipt; Liu ** did not actually occupy the house; there was a fault in not transferring the ownership; and there was even suspicion of malicious collusion and false litigation between the two parties.

Zhu GuiyingThe lawyer's litigation strategy closely follows Article 28 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objections and Review Cases by the People's Courts": "In the execution of monetary claims, if the buyer raises an objection to the real estate registered under the name of the debtor, and the buyer's rights can exclude the execution, the people's court shall support it if the buyer meets the following conditions: (1) A valid written sales contract was signed before the people's court sealed up the property; (2) The buyer lawfully possessed the real estate before the people's court sealed up the property; (3) The buyer has paid the full price or has paid part of the price according to the contract and deposited the remaining price in accordance with the requirements of the people's court for execution; (4) The buyer failed to handle the transfer registration for reasons other than his own." Attorney Zhu believes that the legislative intent of this article is to give priority to protecting the property expectancy rights of innocent real estate buyers. Accordingly, he put forward the following legal opinions in the courtroom to prove one by one that Liu ** meets the conditions for excluding execution:

Firstly, a legally valid written sales contract had been signed before the seizure. The parties had entered into legally valid transaction documents such as the "House Sales Contract" and the "Deposit Contract" before the seizure. Before the house involved in the case was sealed by the judicial authorities on May 28, 2018, Wang * signed the "House Sales Contract" with Liu * on March 7, 2014, in which the ownership of Room 1001 was clearly stipulated and the contract was legally valid.

Secondly, Wang * legally possessed and actually controlled the house involved in the case before the seizure. After the contract was signed, Wang * delivered the house as agreed, and Liu * * possessed and used it. The property fee receipts, water, electricity and gas payment certificates, and the "Certificate" issued by the residents' committee can all sufficiently prove the actual possession of the house.

Thirdly, Liu ** has paid the full purchase price as agreed. Liu ** paid a deposit of 80,000 yuan and 20,000 yuan, and subsequently paid 295,000 yuan and 450,000 yuan, totaling 3.5 million yuan, plus an intermediary fee of 84,000 yuan; on June 26, 2025, he/she paid the balance of 150,000 yuan to the court-designated account, totaling 3.65 million yuan. The amount of performance fulfilled accounts for a very high proportion of the total purchase price, and there was no malicious intent from the beginning.

Fourth, Liu ** failed to handle the transfer of ownership due to reasons beyond his own control. Liu ** actively cooperated with the enforcement and paid the balance in full; after learning about the fact of the seizure, he deposited the remaining 150,000 yuan of the purchase price into the court-designated account in accordance with the court's requirements. In summary, Zhang **'s lawsuit lacks factual and legal basis and should be dismissed in accordance with the law.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court of first instance, in accordance with Article 28 of the "Regulations on Objections to and Review of Enforcement", accepted the fact that Liu * signed the "House Purchase Contract" with Wang * and the claim that she had paid a down payment of 3.5 million yuan. It determined that Liu *'s payment of the remaining balance to the court for enforcement met the requirements. Combined with the property fee receipts and the neighborhood committee's certificate to prove actual occupancy, and there was no evidence to prove that it was Liu *'s own reason that the transfer of ownership was not completed. The court ruled to dismiss all of Zhang *'s litigation requests. The case acceptance fee of 70 yuan shall be borne by Zhang *, and the announcement fee of 200 yuan shall be borne by Wang *.

Zhang * * appealed to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court, claiming that the core terms of the contract were not effective, the transaction price was abnormal, the payer was a third party, Liu * *, he did not actually possess the property, and the first-instance court failed to review the false litigation and the procedure of adding a third party was illegal. During the second-instance trial,Zhu GuiyingThe lawyer continued to represent the client, emphasizing that the first-instance court's findings of the facts were clear and the application of the law was correct. The second-instance court held that Liu * and Wang * had signed a written sales contract before the seizure, and Zhang *'s claim that the contract was not effective was an internal agreement and Wang * did not raise any objections, so the defense lacked basis; Liu * had paid 3.65 million yuan before the conclusion of the debate in the first-instance court and provided a reasonable explanation; the property fee receipts, the neighborhood committee's certificate, and the "Property Service Contract" obtained by the second-instance court were sufficient to determine that Liu * had lawfully occupied the property before the seizure; and the existing evidence was insufficient to prove that it was due to Liu *'s own reasons that the transfer of ownership had not been completed. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court ruled to dismiss the appeal and maintain the original judgment. The second-instance case acceptance fee of 22,454 yuan shall be borne by Zhang *. This case is a final judgment. Liu * won both trials and successfully protected her property rights.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

Case Note: Not all houses that have been purchased but not transferred can be excluded from enforcement. The key lies in whether the chain of evidence is complete, whether the transaction is genuine, whether the payment and possession occurred before the seizure, and whether the non-transfer of ownership can be attributed to the buyer. If the buyer encounters a house being seized, they should promptly fix the sales contract, payment receipts, and proof of possession and use, and pay the remaining balance to the court as required. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Zhu GuixinThe lawyer (practice certificate number: 11101202011246828, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

VI. Common Questions about Enforcement of Court Judgments (FAQ)

  1. Q: What should I do if I buy a house but haven't completed the transfer of ownership and it's been sealed up by the court? A: You can file an objection to enforcement. If you meet the four requirements of Article 28 of the "Regulations on Objections to and Review of Enforcement", you can avoid forced enforcement and, if necessary, file a lawsuit against the enforcement objection.
  2. Q: How to file a lawsuit against an execution objection? A: The buyer of the property subject to execution shall act as the plaintiff and provide evidence to prove their right to exclude the execution, including the signing of the contract before the seizure, lawful possession, full payment, and failure to transfer ownership for reasons beyond their control.
  3. Q: Under what circumstances can enforcement be ruled out? A: Having signed a valid sales contract before the seizure, lawfully possessing the property before the seizure, having paid all or part of the purchase price as agreed and handed over the remaining balance to the enforcement authority, and not failing to transfer ownership due to reasons beyond the buyer's control.
  4. Q: Can the enforcement be ruled out even if the balance payment hasn't been made? A: Yes. If the buyer has paid part of the price according to the contract and handed over the remaining balance to the people's court for enforcement as required, they still meet the statutory conditions.
  5. Q: What should I do if the other party says that the contract is not effective unless the property rights certificate is obtained? A: If the seller does not raise objections and the contract does not have any other invalid circumstances, the internal effective clause does not affect the buyer's legitimate expectations. The court usually recognizes the contract as legal and valid.