Yingting news

In May 2026, a 100-million-yuan administrative agreement dispute caused by the obstruction of the development of the "tourist town" project came to an end in the Intermediate People's Court of a certain city in Guangxi under the professional representation of lawyer Zhang Ting of Beijing Yingtong Law Firm. The court finally adopted the lawyer's core point of view on "the administrative agency failed to perform its liquidation and compensation duties as agreed" and ruled that the defendant's county administrative department should make a compensation decision for the legal assets (qualified project quantities) formed by the plaintiff's investment in a development company within 60 days from the date of the judgment, successfully breaking the three-year negotiation deadlock between the two parties.

Investment projects are stranded, and companies are stuck in an "exit deadlock"

In 2018, as an investment promotion enterprise, the company signed a "Framework Agreement for the Development and Construction of a Small Town" with the county authorities, and planned to invest in the construction of a small town and a five-star hotel. After the project was launched, the company participated in the delisting of land and advanced funds for shantytown reconstruction and construction as agreed, and invested a large amount of money.

However, due to objective reasons such as land within the planned scope being occupied for the construction of national highways, project development has stalled. In 2022, in order to resolve the conflict, the two parties signed the "Framework Agreement on the Settlement of Investments in a Small Town" (hereinafter referred to as the "Withdrawal Framework Agreement"), stipulating that the company would fully withdraw from the project, and the administrative agencies would need to provide "fair and reasonable compensation" to the legal assets formed by the plaintiff's investment.

After the agreement was signed, the company fulfilled its obligations to vacate the land and hand over data, but the two parties were locked in a three-year tug-of-war over the specific amount of compensation. The investment amount determined by the audit agency commissioned by the local competent authority is significantly different from the actual investment of the company, resulting in delays in the payment of compensation. In November 2025, the company involved in the case, which was in operational difficulties, entrusted the Zhang Ting team of Beijing Yuting Law Firm to file an administrative lawsuit, requiring the administrative agency to fulfill the agreement, return the land transfer fee and pay various investment losses.

Accurate characterization to solve the dispute between "administration and civil affairs"

After the case was accepted, the defendant, a county administrative department, put forward a strong defense: on the one hand, it argued that the "Removal Framework Agreement" signed by both parties fell within the scope of a civil contract; on the other hand, on the grounds that "it needs to wait for a specific administrative decision to be made," it claimed that the plaintiff's direct prosecution was a procedural error and tried to block the case from the substantive trial.

Faced with the defendant's defense, lawyer Zhang Ting accurately grasped the direction of the case during the trial and hit the key points:

Qualified as an administrative agreement:The lawyer pointed out that the "Removal Framework Agreement" involved in the case is an agreement signed by the administrative agency and the enterprise based on administrative preferential rights in order to achieve administrative management or public service goals, and it has the obvious nature of an administrative contract. When an administrative agency fails to perform its payment obligations as agreed, it falls within the scope of administrative litigation.

The administrative agency constitutes a breach of contract:The two parties have reached an agreement to vacate the land, and the company has fulfilled its obligation to vacate the land. However, the administrative agency has not made an enforceable compensation decision for up to three years. This is a typical "failure to perform legal duties specified in the administrative agreement" and seriously violates the principle of good faith.

Rejection procedure:In response to the defendant's statement that "we need to wait for the specific administrative decision of the Natural Resources Bureau," the lawyer emphasized that the administrative agency, as the signing party of the "Removal Framework Agreement", has direct performance responsibilities and cannot use internal administrative procedures as a shield to delay corporate compensation indefinitely.

The court supported the plaintiff’s request and ordered the administrative agency to make compensation within a time limit

After hearing, the court held that this case was a dispute over the performance of an administrative agreement. The "Removal Framework Agreement" signed by the plaintiff and the defendant is legal and valid. Both parties should perform their obligations in accordance with the principle of good faith. The defendant's county department does have the legal responsibility to compensate the legal assets formed by the plaintiff's investment.

In May 2026, the Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment: It ordered the competent department of a certain county of the defendant to make a compensation decision or designate a unit to make a compensation decision for the legal assets (qualified project quantities) formed by the investment of a certain company of the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of entry into force of this judgment.

This judgment not only confirms the administrative agency's performance obligations, but also clears procedural obstacles for companies to obtain substantive compensation in the future. Currently, the case has entered the judgment fulfillment period, and lawyer Zhang Ting will continue to assist the client in following up on the implementation of the compensation decision to ensure that "paper rights" are converted into "real money." (Except for the attorney, the names of the parties and the companies involved in the case are pseudonyms in this article)

Judgment of this case

Lawyer in charge of this case

Zhang Ting Lawyer Partner at Beijing Yuting Law Firm

Lawyer Zhang Ting

Lawyer Zhang Ting

Master of Laws, Partner of Beijing Yuting Law Firm, with more than 10 years of practice

Professional administrative reconsideration lawyer in Beijing, member of the Administrative Reconsideration Law Professional Committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association

Business areas:Focusing on administrative reconsideration, administrative litigation and dispute resolution of government-enterprise disputes, it is good at handling administrative legal affairs such as administrative agreements, administrative penalties, administrative compensation, and administrative compensation in the fields of land, mineral resources, etc.

Service features:We mainly provide legal services for administrative dispute resolution and government-enterprise disputes for large and medium-sized enterprises. Our business involves investment projects, land resumption, idle land disposal, closure and vacation, suppression of mineral resources, mining rights disputes, sea area use rights disputes and other difficult and complex matters. We are good at combining administrative law rules, natural resource management requirements and business operation needs to provide customers with comprehensive solutions that combine litigation and non-litigation.