Many years ago, Mr. Yang spent up to 1.98 million yuan ($300,000) to buy a house that he believed was a good decision. Everything went smoothly, and he felt very satisfied with his new house.

However, after 7 years, he suddenly discovered strange sounds when checking the water system under the floor. Trying to find out, Mr. Yang discovered the unbelievable truth: the old owner was still living in the basement of the house and entering and exiting through a different entrance. This person affirmed that the basement of the house did not belong to Mr. Yang.

This situation led to a tense argument between Mr. Yang and the old owner.

The story began 7 years ago, when Mr. Yang decided to buy a house in Jiangsu City. He spent 1.98 million yuan ($300,000) to own this house, including all legal transfer procedures and sales contracts. Although the house is not very spacious, thanks to its convenient location and easy transportation, Mr. Duong feels very satisfied with his choice.

However, everything changed when Mr. Duong discovered a sho.cking truth just recently. One day, when he checked the water system in the house, he had to go down to the basement to check and was surprised to find that the basement space was not simply an annex to the house but was decorated as a fully furnished living space. What is worth mentioning is that Mr. Ly - the former owner of the house was sitting comfortably on the sofa and watching TV right there.

Faced with this unexpected situation, Mr. Duong immediately asked Mr. Ly why he was still living in the basement. Mr. Ly's answer completely stunned Mr. Duong: "I'm selling the house, not the basement. The basement is not in the contract, you have no right to kick me out".

When signing the house purchase contract, Mr. Duong did not pay attention to the ownership of the basement, because the contract only mentioned the area and structure of the house without any clause mentioning the basement. Therefore, he did not realize the existence of the basement in the agreement. As a result, the basement was not identified as an asset owned by Mr. Duong in the contract.

However, when discovering the existence of the basement, Mr. Duong believed that, as an inseparable part of the house, the basement would automatically belong to him. Contrary to his view, Mr. Ly asserted that the basement was not part of the sale transaction, and his continued living there led to a tense argument between the two parties.

Confrontation and litigation

The confrontation between Mr. Duong and Mr. Ly became tense when they could not resolve the conflict through an agreement. Mr. Yang decided to take the case to court, confirming his ownership of the basement and requiring Mr. Li to vacate the basement.

During the trial, Mr. Yang's lawyer argued that the basement, given its structure and use, was clearly an integral part of the house. Therefore, the ownership of the basement should be transferred together with the house. However, Mr. Li's lawyer argued that the basement had separate entrances and exits, so it was not within the scope of the sale transaction, and Mr. Li had no obligation to vacate.

The court had to carefully consider factors such as the actual structure of the house, how the basement was used, and the terms of the sale contract. Although there is no specific provision on the ownership of the basement in Chinese law, according to the basic principle of the Property Law, the basement is generally considered to be part of the house if it does not have separate entrances and exits. However, in this case, the fact that the basement has a separate entrance has complicated the issue.

This case has not yet reached a final conclusion, but it has sparked a heated discussion about ownership and legal issues related to real estate. It is also a profound warning to those who need to buy a house to be careful and carefully consider all the terms in the contract, avoiding awkward dispute situations like Mr. Duong's case.