The buyer has paid the developer for the house, but has not yet obtained the real estate ownership certificate. If the developer's property is seized and executed due to debt disputes, how should the buyer protect their own rights and interests? On the 23rd, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Interpretation on the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Objection to Execution" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation"), which has refined the protection of consumer rights and interests of commercial housing and made greater efforts to protect the legitimate rights and interests of buyers. The Interpretation shall come into effect on July 24, 2025. If the priority right to be compensated for the construction project price is exercised by offsetting the debt with the house, it can be excluded from compulsory execution. After the completion of construction and acceptance by a certain company, the bank company used the 13 houses in the construction project to offset the outstanding project funds. Afterwards, both parties signed a sales contract for the above-mentioned property, and Yin Company issued a unified invoice for the sale of real estate. However, there was a loan contract dispute between Zimou Company and Yinmou Company, and Zimou Company applied for property preservation in the lawsuit. According to the court's ruling, the property, equity and other assets, including the 13 houses involved in the case, have been seized. Afterwards, a certain company raised an objection to the execution of the 13 houses involved in the case. After examination by the court, the objection was deemed valid and the execution of the 13 houses involved was suspended. Zimou Company disagrees and requests permission to execute the case involving 13 houses. The trial court held that the engineering contractor raised an objection to the execution on the grounds that it had agreed with the employer to discount the real estate of the contracted project to realize the priority of repayment of the project debt, and requested the exclusion of sealing measures based on mortgage or other creditor's rights. If the "discounted project agreement" does not have revocable or invalid reasons that harm the interests of other creditors, the people's court should support it. In the end, the court ruled in favor of excluding the execution of the 13 houses involved in the case. The priority right to receive compensation for engineering costs is a special right granted by law to protect the interests of construction contractors. According to the Civil Code, if the employer fails to pay the project price on time, the contractor may negotiate with the employer to discount the construction project or request the people's court to auction the project in accordance with the law, and receive priority compensation from it, except where it is not appropriate to discount or auction based on the nature of the construction project. The Interpretation provides priority protection for creditor's rights related to migrant workers' wages, and stipulates the handling of disputes over the use of real estate to offset construction funds in accordance with Article 807 of the Civil Code in practice. It clarifies that the use of discounted housing can exclude the compulsory enforcement of mortgage rights or general monetary claims. In judicial practice, exercising and realizing the priority right to receive project payments by discounting the engineering real estate agreement is simpler and more feasible than judicial auctions, with lower costs, which is conducive to maximizing the effectiveness of the contractor's liability property and alleviating the practical difficulties of the contractor's arrears of project payments due to insufficient financial resources. Furthermore, prioritizing the protection of the rights and interests of the construction party means better safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the migrant worker population. Expanding the scope of consumer rights protection for commercial housing during implementation [Case] Due to a dispute over private lending, a real estate development company was ordered to return the loan and interest. During the execution phase, the court seized the property under the name of a real estate development company. Among them, there is a property owned by Han Mouping and his wife, who are not involved in the case. Previously, Han Mouping purchased the property from a real estate development company and paid a purchase price of 276600 yuan. Due to the court's seizure and auction of the property involved, Han Mouping and his wife raised an objection to the execution and requested to suspend the auction. The executing court rejected the objection request on the grounds that Han Mouping had other houses under his name for residential purposes. Afterwards, Han Mouping and his wife filed a lawsuit for objection to the execution, demanding the suspension of the auction measures and the lifting of the seal in accordance with the law. The first instance court rejected the lawsuit request of Han Mouping and his wife. After the second instance court trial, it was found that the house involved in the case was purchased by Han Mouping and his wife for their child's enrollment, which meets the demand for rigid housing; At the same time, compared with the original housing located in the suburbs without elevators, it meets the demand for improved housing and enjoys civil rights sufficient to exclude the compulsory enforcement of monetary claims. The court has ruled that the property involved in the case cannot be executed. According to previous regulations, if the property being executed is the only property of the buyer, compulsory execution can be excluded, but if the buyer has other properties, compulsory execution cannot be excluded. A major highlight of the "Interpretation" is the relaxation of restrictions on the type, number, and nature of houses, expanding the scope of protection from "protecting residential needs" to "protecting living needs". The 'living needs' are no longer limited to the only housing for families, but can also include improved housing. The focus of the dispute in this case is whether Han Mouping and his wife have civil rights sufficient to exclude compulsory enforcement over the property involved in the case. The second instance court found that although Han Mouping owned a house for living in the suburbs, the house in question was purchased by Han Mouping and his wife for their children's education and could improve the living environment. It should be recognized as a reasonable consumption category that satisfies the right to survival and protected according to law. The Supreme People's Court requires that in the trial of cases, the court should focus on the substantive examination of whether the disputed house is related to the normal living life of the family of the third party. Judicial trials must adhere to the core concept of safeguarding the right to survival, accurately grasp legal requirements, and achieve the organic unity of safeguarding basic rights and maintaining market transaction order. Fictitious loan and housing debt repayment relationships, filing false lawsuits to evade debt should be punished. [Case] A bank had a loan contract dispute with Chang and others, and the court ruled that Chang should repay the bank's loan of 1 million yuan in principal and interest. After entering the execution procedure, the court seized a house under the name of Mr. Chang. Zhao, an outsider in the case, raised an objection to the execution and requested the exclusion of the execution of the involved house, citing that the house had already been "paid off" to him by Chang. Originally, the day before the seizure, Zhao filed a lawsuit against Chang with a bank transfer record of 820000 yuan and a promissory note on the grounds of a "private lending dispute". On the day of filing, both parties reached a repayment agreement and applied to the court for a civil mediation agreement to confirm that Chang owed Zhao 820000 yuan in principal and interest. Afterwards, both parties signed an agreement to offset the debt confirmed in the mediation agreement for the house involved in the case. During the execution of the court's household investigation, it was found that Chang and his spouse were still living in the house involved in the case, and Chang actually paid the property fees and water and electricity fees. Due to various suspicious points in the case between Zhao and Chang, the People's Court, acting on its authority, retrieved their bank statements and other materials. It was found that there were frequent bank transactions between Zhao and Chang. On the third day after Zhao claimed to lend 820000 yuan, Chang immediately transferred 850000 yuan back to Zhao. But both parties concealed the situation of the circular transfer from the people's court during the mediation. In addition, Chang's bank card had already been activated with a new card number after the transfer and before the lawsuit, but both parties ignored this detail when forging the promissory note and wrote the receiving card number as a new card number that did not exist at that time. The trial court believes that the authenticity of using property as collateral for debt is questionable, and the judgment continues to be enforced regarding the property involved in the case. Based on the household investigation and the facts ascertained in accordance with its authority, the trial court shall initiate the trial supervision procedure for relevant civil lending dispute cases in accordance with the law, and at the same time consult with the procuratorial organs to transfer the criminal clues to the public security organs for criminal filing. Chang and Zhao have been approved for arrest by the procuratorial organs, and their criminal cases are currently under review and prosecution. In practice, there are illegal actors who maliciously use the system of objection to execution to file an objection to execution through malicious collusion, forgery of evidence, and other behaviors, attempting to evade execution. This case belongs to a series of false lawsuits. Chang, knowing that there were outstanding debts, first colluded with others, fabricated debt relationships, and "held hands" to mediate, obtaining a civil mediation agreement. Based on the civil mediation agreement, fabricate a debt to equity agreement and raise objections from third parties to obstruct execution. This type of false litigation not only infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of creditors, but also seriously disrupts the order of litigation, and should be severely cracked down on in accordance with the law. The Interpretation has made active precautions when stipulating the conditions for excluding compulsory enforcement, guiding courts at all levels to carefully examine the authenticity of the sales contract, the authenticity of the payment price, and the authenticity of the creditor's rights, the authenticity of the debt repayment intention, and the reasonableness of the debt repayment price in the use of property as collateral. It requires courts at all levels to strictly examine and prevent false litigation. At the same time, the Interpretation specifically stipulates various legal responsibilities for malicious collusion, forgery of evidence, and fabrication of facts to obstruct enforcement through false litigation. Outsiders, applicants for enforcement, executed persons, litigation representatives, witnesses, and appraisers are all bound by this provision. (New Society)