In this case, although the developed company is not the employer of the project involved in the case, as a subcontractor, it has not paid all the project funds to Zhang Xi
.
As for the project payment and related debt relationship with Zhang Xi, if they can provide additional evidence, they can also be settled through separate litigation
.
The original judgment that the general contractor developed company should bear joint and several liability is groundless
.
The applicant developed company applied to this court for retrial in accordance with paragraph 2 and 6 of article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, saying: first, the original judgment that developed company was jointly and severally liable for the debts of Zhang Xi and Zhang Weifeng lacked factual and legal basis
.
The developed company has no contractual relationship with Wu Xianjin and other five persons
.
This case does not belong to the legal situation of breaking through the principle of contract relativity
.
The respondent Wu Xianjin and other five people jointly submitted written opinions that: first, Zhang Xi and Zhang Weifeng contracted the project with the qualification of developed companies, independently accounted for their own profits and losses, and the developed companies were only responsible for collecting high management fees, so they should be jointly and severally liable for the debts of Zhang Xi and Zhang Weifeng
.
In the case of multi-layer subcontracting, how should the main responsibilities of all parties be borne? In judicial practice, the handling opinions of various courts are diverse
.
The defendant of the first instance (the appellee of the second instance) Fuhe company submitted a written opinion saying that: first, Fuhe company has no objection to the first item of the judgment of the second instance and has fulfilled it
.
” In this case, although the developed company is not the employer of the project involved in the case, as a subcontractor, it has not paid all the project funds to Zhang Xi
.
The court of first instance directly ruled on the capital account without audit, which is unfair
.
The original trial ordered it to bear joint and several liability for the project funds owed by Zhang Xi to the actual constructor, which has not actually damaged its interests
.
2、 The developed company failed to pay all the project funds to Zhang Xi, and was at fault, resulting in the failure to pay the project funds of Wu Xianjin and other five people and the labor wages of migrant workers
.
Article 24 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects (II) stipulates: “if the actual construction contractor claims rights with the employer as the defendant, the people’s court shall add a subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the third person in this case, After finding out the amount of the construction project price owed by the employer to the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor, it shall be judged that the employer shall be liable to the actual constructor within the scope of the construction project price owed
.
The original review found that all parties recognized the amount of project funds paid, which was inconsistent with the facts, and the developed company never recognized it
.
First of all, in this case, for the fact that the developed company has paid all the project funds, the evidence cited is the payment schedule and bank transfer receipt
.
The court of first instance held that it was not improper that the developed company had not paid all the project funds to Zhang Xi and had been settled
.
Moreover, the developed company has paid all the project funds to Zhang Xi
.
From the bank transfer receipt, the transaction purpose of RMB 1 million and RMB 2.82 million transferred to Zhang Xi on November 29, 2012 and January 7, 2013 is loan, not the project fund of the case
.
2、 The basic facts identified in the original trial lacked sufficient evidence to prove that the facts were wrong
.
Case index: civil ruling on Retrial review and trial supervision of disputes over construction contracts of developed Holding Group Co., Ltd
.
3670, June 28, 2021, judge: Yu Lin, Li Yanchen, Huang Peng
.
The total loan of 3.82 million yuan transferred by the developed company to Zhang Xi is applied by Zhang Xi for the initial construction of the project involved in the case, which is a debt that can be offset according to law
.
In conclusion, the retrial application of developed companies does not meet the provisions of items 2 and 6 of article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China
.
Thirdly, the developed company claimed that the original trial found that Wu Xianjin and others were the actual constructors with insufficient evidence and wrong facts, but did not provide corresponding evidence to prove it, and the court did not recognize this reason
.
Although the payment schedule indicates that the project funds are transferred to Zhang Xi, this schedule is made unilaterally by developed companies and should be comprehensively identified in combination with other evidence
.
At the same time, the purpose of the transfer is also noted as labor expenses, material funds, reimbursement, repayment and interest on behalf of Zhang Xi, such as 2085000 yuan paid to Hu Xiaojuan and 2624000 yuan paid to Yuncheng microfinance Co., Ltd
.
The original trial only based on the construction project cooperation agreement, that is, it was found that the project involved in the case was undertaken by Wu Xianjin and other five people and should enjoy all the project funds, which was a mistake in fact
.
The court of second instance did not recognize the fact that the developed company had paid all the project funds to Zhang Xi and had been settled, which was an error in fact finding
.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China and paragraph 2 of article 395 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, it ruled to reject the retrial application of developed Holding Group Co., Ltd
.
As for the project payment and related debt relationship with Zhang Xi, if they can provide additional evidence, they can also be settled through separate litigation
.
Wu Xianjin and other five people have more project cooperation with Zhang Weifeng, and the economic exchanges are complex
.
In this case, there is no arrears of migrant workers’ wages and migrant workers’ interests
.
and Wu Xianjin construction project (2021), supreme law min Shen No
.
It shall be jointly and severally liable for the debts of Zhang Xi and Zhang Weifeng
.
Let’s see how the Supreme Court finds this case
.
The Supreme Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the developed company should be jointly and severally liable for the debts of Zhang Xi and Zhang Weifeng
.
The original trial ordered it to bear joint and several liability for the project funds owed by Zhang Xi to the actual constructor, which has not actually damaged its interests
.
Secondly, Article 24 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects (II) stipulates: “if the actual construction contractor claims rights with the employer as the defendant, the people’s court shall add a subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the third party in this case, After finding out the amount of the construction project price owed by the employer to the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor, it shall be judged that the employer shall be liable to the actual constructor within the scope of the construction project price owed
.
” 2
.
There is a law in the world If you need to hire a lawyer, please contact: Shandong Yuanting law firm Address of Lawyer Wang: litigation and arbitration department, 4th floor, Haitong building, 188 Yingbin Road, Donggang District, Rizhao City, Shandong Province Tel.: 19806332662 email: 19806332662@163.com 。
2、 The retrial application and reasons submitted by the developed company shall be examined and handled by the court according to law
.
of Nanchang Economic and Technological Development Zone in three times, which is used to repay on behalf of Zhang Xi, On the premise that the developed company has not further proved that the above-mentioned funds belong to the scope of the project funds involved in the case, it is difficult to identify them as the project funds of the case
.
Key points of judgment 1
.
