The property management company did not regularly disclose public benefits in the community as agreed in the property contract, nor did it regularly report the income situation to the property committee, nor did it return the public benefit expenses in the community to the property committee. Recently, the Intermediate people's court of Fuyang City, Anhui Province, handed down a judgment on a dispute over a property service contract, and the property company returned a total of more than 1.13 million yuan to the community industry committee for the public income expenses in the community. After trial, the court found that in June 2020, the property committee of a certain community in Fuyang (Party A) and a property company (Party B) signed the "Property Service Contract for a Certain Community in Fuyang", with a contract term of three years. The contract stipulates: "The operating income from the advertising space and other public areas in the community shall be managed by Party B, and the income obtained shall be recorded separately. The income shall be reported to Party A at the end of each quarter. The annual income shall be announced in the community at the end of each year, and 70% of the income shall be included in the owner's special fund, which shall be used by Party A with the consent of the owner's meeting. 30% shall be used to subsidize Party B's property service fees, The property management company did not regularly disclose the annual public benefits in the community according to the contract, nor did it regularly report the benefits to the property committee, nor did it return the public benefits expenses in the community to the property committee. Helplessly, the community business committee decided to entrust an evaluation company to evaluate public benefits. After evaluation, as of February 28, 2022, the operating income and capital occupancy interest of the residential advertising space and other public parts were over 2.525 million yuan. According to the contract, the property management company should return more than 1.76 million yuan to a community business committee in Fuyang at a rate of 70% of the collected amount. After being urged by the property management committee of a certain community in Fuyang, the property management company only returned 145000 yuan, and the remaining 1.6 million yuan was repeatedly urged but failed. In July 2022, the community industry committee will take the property company to the People's Court of Yingquan District, Fuyang City. After the first instance verdict, the defendant's property company filed an appeal on the grounds that the appraisal and evaluation results were unilaterally entrusted by the plaintiff and the public interest was voluntarily waived by the property committee before October 2020. After the trial by the Fuyang Intermediate People's Court, it was believed that although the price evaluation opinion in the case was unilaterally entrusted by the property committee of a certain community in Fuyang, the evaluation institution Anhui Yize Price Evaluation Co., Ltd. is a qualified and qualified evaluation institution, and the evaluation opinion has sufficient basis and legal procedures, which can be used as a reference for finalizing the case. Although the property management company raised objections to the evaluation opinion, they did not provide sufficient evidence to refute it, and did not apply for a re evaluation in both the first and second trials. The first instance court made a judgment based on the above-mentioned price evaluation opinion, and there was no impropriety. On November 21, 2021, the property committee of a certain community in Fuyang sent a "Non motorized vehicle shed construction payment supervision letter" to the property company, which stated that "the public benefits before October 2020 will no longer be recovered". However, the abandonment of public benefits is a significant matter related to the common interests of all owners, and should be authorized by the owners' meeting. The content of the owner's meeting provided by the property committee of a certain community in Fuyang also did not authorize the abandonment of public benefits. The property committee of a certain community in Fuyang has provided corresponding explanations for the issuance of the above-mentioned supervision letter and has been advocating for this part of the income. However, the evidence provided by the property management company cannot prove that the matter has been authorized by the owners' meeting. Therefore, the property management company should provide services in accordance with the relevant property management regulations