In the case that the actual constructors of group A (Wang Youzu and Li Changlu) could not prove the exact quantities of the project, the court had investigated and verified the quantities (cost) of group B one by one Under the premise of Chu (having checked the payment voucher (bank flow), and finding that all the constructors in group B can confirm each other’s records), the court determined the actual construction quantity (cost) of group A by subtraction, that is, the total price of 1738662 yuan minus the completed construction quantity (cost) of group B
.
2、 Brief introduction of the case employer: Tongren County Water Conservancy Bureau contractor: Tongren County Longxing water conservancy and Hydropower Construction Development Co., Ltd
.
However, the contractor often does not realize the importance of lawyers, and only wants to find lawyers when there is no way
.
The relationship between group A and group B was parallel and juxtaposed
.
(hereinafter referred to as Longxing company) Longxing company subcontract to (individual): Jihe first, Jihe first and then subcontract to (individual): Guo Baohong, Wang Youzu, Li Changlu, Li Chenglin, Ma Xiaoming, Ka Xianjia, Cai rang first, etc
.
Civil ruling on Retrial review and trial supervision of construction contract disputes between Li Xiaoyun and Wang Maosong, Supreme People’s court, case No
.
In addition, Longxing company deducted 52159 yuan of management fee and 3850 yuan of tax when paying the project payment to jihexian
.
（2） Ji Hexian, Wang Youzu and Li Changlu, the Supreme Court, did not confirm and settle the quantities and prices, so they could not be directly identified
.
After deducting the project payment actually paid by jihexian and the management fees and taxes deducted by Longxing company from the total price of the project, the remaining amount should be the project payment that has not been paid to Li Changlu and Wang Youzu, that is, 1738662 yuan – 1669562 yuan – 52159 yuan – 3850 yuan = 13091 yuan
.
Therefore, the court does not accept the appellant’s objection
.
The quantities completed by group A have not been confirmed by jihexian, while the quantities completed by group B have been confirmed and paid by jihexian
.
Group a can not prove the exact quantity (cost) of the project
.
Civil judgment of the second instance of construction contract dispute between Li Xiaoyun, Wang, etc
.
In view of this, the Supreme Court upheld the second instance judgment of Qinghai High Court and rejected the retrial application of group A (Wang Youzu and Li Changlu)
.
Focus of dispute: how to determine the project cost of group A (Wang Youzu, Li Changlu) under the condition of multiple contractors for the same section of the project? 3、 Abstract (1) Qinghai High Court can only determine the actual completed quantities and prices of Li Changlu and Wang Youzu by combining with the relevant evidence of Ji Hexian’s payment to other actual construction workers involved in the construction
.
If the source label is wrong or your rights and interests are infringed, please let us know and we will delete them immediately
.
689, chief judge Ding Guangyu, judgment date: March 26, 2002
.
In this case, group A (Wang Youzu and Li Changlu) filed a lawsuit in partnership, while group B (Guo Baohong, Li Chenglin, Ma Xiaoming, Ka Xianjia and Cai rang Xian) did not file a lawsuit
.
The court found that the total cost of the project, which Jihe first contracted to group A and group B, was 1738662 yuan, and all parties had no objection
.
(2018) qingminzhong No
.
2
.
For construction lawyers and judges, the practical significance of this case lies in: in the case of multiple contractors in the same section of the project, the “subtraction” can be used to determine the quantity (cost) of some contractors under specific conditions..
.
(2020) Supreme People’s court No
.
In the original trial, the contracting, subcontracting, subcontracting and payment of the parties involved in the project have been found out in detail
.
If the court adheres to the concept of negative justice and rejects the application of group a actual constructor with insufficient evidence, it can not be blamed
.
and jihexian, Tongren County Longxing water conservancy and Hydropower Construction Development Co., Ltd., Qinghai High Court, case No
.
Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network Network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping network mapping source: the Supreme People’s court and China’s judicial documents are only for exchange and learning, The copyright belongs to the original author
.
The above-mentioned fact of jihexian payment is mutually confirmed by the payment details of jihexian bank card, the transcript of conversation and receipt obtained by the court of first instance in accordance with its authority
.
The contractor needs more professional lawyers to provide services than the established construction enterprises
.
1、 Case index 1
.
4、 Enlightenment and summary: in the case that the same section of the project was constructed by multiple contractors, the total price of the project involved in the case was 1738662 yuan (no objection from all parties)
.
According to the facts found out by the court, jihexian has successively paid 700000 yuan to Wang Youzu and Li Changlu, 39490 yuan to Cai rang Jia, 1860 yuan to Ma yidile, 60000 yuan to Xia Wuluo Zang, 236000 yuan to Guo Baohong and 260000 yuan to Wang Youzu, respectively Li Chenglin and Ma Xiaoming paid 457000 yuan for the project, 37500 yuan for kaxianjia, 137712 yuan for cairang, and 1669562 yuan for Shangji Hexian
.
192, chief judge Ding Guangyu, judgment date: October 219, 2018
.
Although Li and other three Appellants hold objection to it, there is no refutation evidence to prove it
.
Some articles can’t be contacted with the original author in time
.
In this case, it is reasonable and reasonable to regard the remaining amount as the project payment not yet paid to Li Changlu and Wang Youzu after the total project price minus the project payment paid by Jihe to the actual constructors and the management fees and taxes deducted by Longxing company
.
Conclusion of this case: the contractor is lack of legal consciousness, evidence consciousness and contract consciousness
.
To sum up, the court of first instance held that jihexian still owed the three appellants 13091 yuan for the project, the facts were clear and the applicable law was accurate, which was upheld by the court
.
the court has tried every means to investigate and based on the original evidence of the advantage of civil litigation The actual construction quantity (cost) of group A reflects the concept of active justice
.
