In addition, according to the appraisal opinion, the part of the undocumented bill of quantities is 710000 yuan
.
Legal representative: Fu Zeguang, general manager of the company
.
The judgment of the first and second instance has been confirmed, but the amount of this part is omitted in the calculation of the judgment of the second instance, which should be corrected
.
4、 1
.
1 construction engineering company, with its domicile at Binjiang East Road, Sanhe street, Fengdu County, Chongqing * *
.
7 of Chongqing third intermediate people’s court; The judgment was changed according to law to support all Wu Daoquan’s appeals of second instance
.
02 full text of the document civil judgment of the Supreme People’s Court of the people’s Republic of China (2019) Supreme faminzai No
.
2、 The original first and second instance did not accept the earthwork quantities wrongly
.
According to Item 2 of Article 26 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of construction contract dispute cases of construction projects, the judgment of the second instance found that Wu Daoquan had no priority to be compensated for the discount and auction price of his construction projects, which was an error of applicable law
.
The retrial applicant Wu daoquanyin and the respondent Chongqing Fengdu No.1 Construction Engineering Company (hereinafter referred to as Fengdu No.1 Construction Company), Chongqing Garden Engineering Construction Co., Ltd
.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Chen Hao, lawyer of Beijing Deheng (Chongqing) law firm
.
This was the addition of debt, and had paid 12 million yuan according to the agreement, which fulfilled most of its obligations
.
The subject matter that had been surveyed on the site existed and was identified by the judicial expertise, and the court refused to recognize it on the grounds that Fengdu No
.
Fuyou company and Furui company failed to appeal the judgment of first instance, and the court of second instance changed the judgment on their obligations, which was illegal
.
Facts and reasons: I
.
In the first and second instance, it is an error of applicable law that Fengdu first construction company has not settled with the owner
.
On April 22, 2019, the court made (2019) supreme law min Shen No
.
Source: WeChat public number 01, official account of the judicial home, “the Supreme People’s court interpretations of the application of legal issues in the dispute over construction contracts” stipulates that the second party shall bear the responsibility for the actual contractor only within the range of the project cost owed, that is, the actual contractor has the right to claim the project price to the employer, and the twenty-sixth party shall be responsible for the construction of the contract
.
1 construction company, the entrusted ad litem agents Chen Hao and Li Weiya of the garden engineering company, and Liu Xingyuan, the jointly entrusted ad litem agent of Furui company and Fuyou company, attended the court
.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Liu Xingyuan, lawyer of Chongqing Damei law firm
.
2
.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Zhao WANYING, lawyer of Chongqing Damei law firm
.
Respondent (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance): Chongqing Fengdu No
.
The trial of this case has been concluded
.
Payment for steel structure materials: 559375.07 yuan for steel structure materials customized by Wu Daoquan and Chongqing Iron and Steel Group Sanfeng Huashen Steel Structure Co., Ltd
.
Wu Daoquan submits the daily verification sheet to the owner
.
Project department and container cost: 445509.01 yuan
.
258 retrial applicant (plaintiff of first instance and appellant of second instance): Wu Daoquan, male, born on June 7, 1967, Han nationality, living in Fuling District, Chongqing
.
The court formed a collegial panel according to law and held a court session to hear the case
.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Liu Xingyuan, lawyer of Chongqing Damei law firm, entrusted agent ad litem: Zhao WANYING, lawyer of Chongqing Damei law firm
.
820 civil ruling and brought the case to trial
.
4
.
005-007 was forged
.
Respondent (defendant in the first instance and appellee in the second instance): Chongqing Fuyou Cultural Development Co., Ltd., domicile: Zhong, domicile: 110 middle school complex building * * Xuefu Avenue, Nan’an District, Chongqing, legal representative: Zhou Xiaoying, executive director of the company
.
However, the judgment of the first and second instance failed to judge the garden engineering company to bear the responsibility because it failed to judge the owner to bear the responsibility
.
based on the notice issued by Furui company on August 12, 2015, the notice of on-site inspection and handling of project quality and safety (fyzsz (2015) No
.
25) prepared by Fengdu No
1 construction company on September 11, 2015, the decision on rectification and punishment prepared by Furui company on September 15, 2015, the minutes of meeting written by Wu Daoquan and other relevant evidence, The judgment of the first instance found that Wu Daoquan started work on August 29, 2015 correctly, and the judgment of the second instance found that Wu Daoquan started work after August 29, 2015 wrongly, and there was no evidence to prove it
.
Therefore, there is no factual and legal basis for the actual constructor to claim that he has the priority to be compensated for the project price
.
Wu Daoquan’s request to order Fuyou company, Furui company and garden engineering company to assume responsibility within the scope of unpaid payment is in line with the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court
.
5
.
(hereinafter referred to as garden engineering company), Chongqing Fengdu Furui Culture Communication Co., Ltd
.
1 construction company did not affix its seal in the customization contract, which was obviously wrong
.
When Wu Daoquan terminated the contract with Fuyou company and Furui company, the garden engineering company had signed a four party agreement and promised to bear the payment responsibility
.
Machinery lease loss: Wu Daoquan’s evidence shows that the loss is 906025.20 yuan, and the quota of judicial appraisal is 622138.53 yuan
.
3
.
Entrusted agent ad litem: ran Guanghui, lawyer of Chongqing Ruicheng law firm
.
Although it is not signed by the owner, the matters that must be completed for the implementation of project construction are not supported in the original trial on the grounds of not signing the bill, which is unfair to Wu Daoquan.
.
86 of Chongqing Higher People’s court and applied to this court for retrial
.
The quantities of earthwork and stonework exist objectively
.
3
.
1
.
Loss of migrant workers during shutdown: Wu Daoquan’s evidence shows that the loss is 1677133.33 yuan, and the quota of judicial expertise is 484219.42 yuan
.
3、 Due to the wrong identification of the commencement time, Wu Daoquan’s shutdown losses were not identified in the second instance, which is unfair and wrong
.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Zeng Yulong, lawyer of Chongqing daorun law firm
.
Respondent (defendant of first instance and appellee of second instance): Chongqing Fengdu Furui Culture Communication Co., Ltd., domicile: Shuanggui street, Mingshan street, Fengdu County, Chongqing * * * * 2-1, legal representative: Zhou Xiaoying, executive director of the company
.
The retrial applicant Wu Daoquan and his entrusted ad litem agent ran Guanghui, the entrusted ad litem agent Zeng Yulong of the respondent Fengdu No
.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Li Weiya, lawyer of Beijing Deheng (Chongqing) law firm
.
Respondent (defendant of the first instance and appellant of the second instance): Chongqing Garden Engineering Construction Co., Ltd., residing in Ziwei Branch Road, longta street, Chongqing * *, legal representative: Chen Huachuan, chairman of the company
.
Although the owner has not sealed it, it is contained in the monthly statement of quantities and budget list submitted by Wu Daoquan
.
86 of Chongqing Higher People’s court and the civil judgment (2016) yu03 minchu No
.
According to the contract between both parties, failure to reply after submission is deemed as approval, and this part involves 1.38 million yuan
.
The main evidence identified was that the authentication Form No
.
2
.
However, it does not stipulate that the actual constructor has the priority to be compensated for the project price《 Article 286 of the contract law of the people’s Republic of China only stipulates that the Contractor shall enjoy the priority of compensation for the project price, and does not stipulate that the actual constructor shall also enjoy this right
.
Wu Daoquan’s retrial request: in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, request: to revoke the civil judgment (2018) yuminzhong No
.
Wu Daoquan advocated that at least 1.3 times the interest rate should be supported
.
Interest on overdue payment: it was originally decided that the benchmark loan interest rate of the people’s Bank of China in the same period was too low to make up for Wu Daoquan’s capital cost loss
.
(hereinafter referred to as Furui company) Chongqing Fuyou Cultural Development Co., Ltd
. 
4
.
(hereinafter referred to as Fuyou company) refused to accept the civil judgment (2018) yuminzhong No
.
