Le Mouping and his team are engaged in construction work and are also practical workers, so this case can be applied Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects Article 26 with regard to the provision that the actual constructor can claim rights from the employer within the scope of the unpaid project price, Le Mouping has the right to claim rights from the employer Huai’an Mingfa company.
Respondent (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance): Fujian Sihai Construction Co., Ltd.
The evidence certified by the judgment of the first and second instance proves that Le Mouping and Peng mourui are the construction project construction contract relationship, and the judgment of the second instance will The determination of the cause of action as a labor contract dispute is inconsistent with the facts, and does not comply with the provisions on the cause of action of civil cases promulgated and implemented by the Supreme People’s court.
The review of the case has been concluded.
If you don’t want to miss the highlight of this official account, please put the public number of construction technology as the star sign and click “collect”, “look at” and “Zan” at the end of the text, so that each new article will appear in the subscription list at the first time.
domicile: *.
Star setting method: enter the official account homepage, click on the top right corner, click “set star”, the official account will appear yellow Pentagram (Android and iOS user operation alike) editor’s note: “the Supreme People’s court interpretations of the application of legal issues in the construction contract dispute cases” twenty-sixth stipulates: “If the actual construction contractor brings a lawsuit against the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the defendant, the people’s court shall accept it according to law.
The retrial applicant Le Mouping and the respondent Fujian Sihai Construction Co., Ltd.
The employer shall be liable to the actual construction contractor only to the extent of the unpaid project price.” the construction project contractor and its employees (team) is a labor legal relationship.
Peng mourui owed Le Mouping (team) 359849.50 yuan of labor fees.
The third person in the first instance: Mingfa Group Nanjing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.
Based on the facts identified in the case, Sihai company recognized that Peng mourui was affiliated with him for construction, and Peng mourui was the real partner of Huai’an Mingfa Commercial Plaza project International construction worker; Sihai company and Peng mourui are internal contractors.
Le Mouping applied for retrial and said: (1) The judgment of the second instance found that there was no evidence to prove the basic facts.
with domicile: *.
1.
792 of Fujian Higher People’s court and applied to the court for retrial.
4.
these legal relationships are reflected in Article 29 of the construction law of the people’s Republic of China, Article 5 of the provisions on the administration of the qualification of construction enterprises, item 1 of the general provisions of the qualification standard of construction enterprises, etc.
The judgment of the second instance found that the case does not meet the preconditions for the application of Article 26 of the above judicial interpretation and has corresponding factual basis, which is not an error in the application of law.
Although Le Mouping filed a lawsuit of the first instance in his own name, the actual construction was carried out by Le Mouping and his team.
After examination, the court held that the focus of the retrial examination of the case was whether Huai’an Mingfa company should bear the payment responsibility for the debts involved in the case within the scope of the unpaid project funds.
(2) The judgment of the second instance deviated from the correct direction of Z governance.
//Wechat public account setting prompt/// The official account is official.
domicile: *.
(team) Based on this provision, the employer of the project involved in the request case shall bear the liability for repayment within the scope of unpaid project funds, which lacks corresponding factual basis and legal basis, and the judgment of the second instance is not supported and not improper.
In addition to the lowest level In addition to the labor relationship or labor relationship formed between the contractor and its employees, the intermediate subcontracting and the first subcontracting (or general contracting) form a construction project subcontract relationship between the subcontractor and the contractor, specifically including general contracting contract relationship, special project subcontract relationship, labor subcontract relationship, etc.
The judgment of the second instance changed the construction contract relationship of the construction project into the labor contract relationship, and the applicable law was wrong.
There is no doubt that the construction contract relationship between Le Mouping and Peng mourui is formed.
As the personnel employed by the contractor to engage in mud and water labor, the team is not the actual constructor in the above legal sense.
3.
The agreement signed by Le Mouping and Sihai company Article 1 also states that this payment is the salary of migrant workers.
Respondent (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance) : Peng mourui.
The facts are clear.
Respondent (Third Party of first instance and appellant of second instance): Huai’an Mingfa Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.
2.
In view of the reorganization of Sihai company, if Le Mouping can only claim project funds from Peng mourui and Sihai company, its legitimate rights and interests will not be protected, which is also consistent with the introduction of the above judicial solution The purpose of interpretation is contrary to the spirit, which will inevitably lead to the loss of the legitimate rights and interests of migrant workers, and then undermine social harmony and stability The court applied for retrial in accordance with the provisions of items 2 and 6 of article 200.
Le Mouping is the leader of the 1#2#3#6# muddy water team in the Huaian Mingfa Commercial Plaza plot C project contracted by Peng mourui.
NOCITCE changed the push rule because of WeChat official account.
As the contractor of the project involved in the case, Sihai company signed an agreement with Le Mouping on Peng mourui’s arrears of the above labor fees Therefore, the judgment of the second instance found that Sihai company voluntarily assumed the payment obligation of Peng mourui’s arrears to le Mouping’s labor service fees by means of debt accession, which has corresponding grounds..
The court formed a collegial panel to review the case according to law.
(hereinafter referred to as Mingfa Nanjing company), refused to accept the civil judgment (2018) minminzhong No.
In addition to illegal subcontracting, subcontracting at all levels is a common phenomenon in the field of construction engineering and has also been recognized by the law.
In this case, Le Mouping also applied for payment of “labor fee of 359849.50 yuan and interest”, and it was also recognized that the arrears were “migrant workers’ wages” in the retrial application Therefore, the judgment of the second instance found that there was no construction contract relationship between Le Mouping and Peng mourui, and it was not improper to define the cause of the case as a labor contract dispute.
The relevant documents of the State Council and the Ministry of construction emphasize that in the field of engineering construction, if the judicial judgment leads to the lack of protection of migrant workers’ hard-earned money, it deviates from the correct direction of Z governance.
(hereinafter referred to as Sihai company) and Huai’an Mingfa Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.
Text: civil ruling of the Supreme People’s Court of the people’s Republic of China (2019) supreme law min Shen No.
More specifically, the Construction Subcontract relationship between Le Mouping and Peng mourui is formed.
In the manual wage payment table of Huai’an project signed by Peng mourui on January 10, 2017, it is confirmed that Le Mouping (team) should pay 349849.50 yuan of “1.2.3.6 internal and external ending wages”, “2#1-3 floor spot work salary” is 10000 yuan, totaling 359849.50 yuan; on November 15, 2016, Sihai company (Party A) and Le Mouping (Party B) signed an agreement, which also specifies “In view of Peng mourui’s failure to perform relevant obligations in accordance with the internal contract, Party A, as the contractor of the project, hereby reaches the following agreement through friendly negotiation on matters such as the arrears of labor expenses of the internal contractor Peng mourui to Party B.” Therefore, the fact that Le Mouping and his team formed a labor legal relationship with Peng mourui is clear.
5594 retrial applicant (plaintiff of the first instance and appellee of the second instance) : Le Mouping.
(hereinafter referred to as Huai’an Mingfa company) Peng mourui and the third party of the first instance, Mingfa Group Nanjing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.
Le Mouping and his team are not legal persons and should not be a subject of litigation (lack of registration and filing) Therefore, it is correct for Le Mouping to file a lawsuit on behalf of his team as the plaintiff; if the subject matter of the lawsuit only involves Le Mouping, it is a labor dispute, but the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case involves Le Mouping’s team, it should be the construction project subcontract relationship.
If the actual construction contractor claims rights with the employer as the defendant, the people’s court may add the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the party to the case.
