“The court of first instance held that in this case, chengtuo company signed the project construction contract with Sino German company, and Wu dianfei signed the internal construction contract with chengtuo company , Wu dianfei does not have the qualification of construction subject, and the signed agreement shall be invalid, but the project has been completed and accepted.
Case information trial court: Huai’an intermediate people’s court appellant (original defendant): Huai’an Zhongde light aircraft Co., Ltd.
On December 17, 2018, chengtuo company (Party A) and Wu dianfei (Party B) The creditor’s right transfer agreement is signed, which stipulates that: 1.
He has successfully represented many litigation cases with large amount, complex legal relations and great influence.
The contract is a fixed total price contract with a contract price of RMB 26500000.
According to Article 19 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of construction project contract dispute cases (II): “if the quality of the construction project is qualified and the contractor requests that the price of the construction project be repaid in priority with the price converted or auctioned by the project, the people’s court shall support it.” The law does not take the effectiveness of the contract as the prerequisite for priority compensation.
Wu dianfei, as the actual constructor and the transferee of the creditor’s rights of the project involved, also obtained the priority compensation right for the construction part of the project involved when he transferred the creditor’s rights involved from the contract contractor.
2.
261 judges: Jiang Dongxin, Zhang Zhaoyu and Zou Yanping judgment date: May 8, 2020 basic case “on April 20, 2016, Zhongde company and chengtuo company signed The project construction contract stipulates that the project name is the dormitory building, complex building and 1#-5# assembly workshop (Civil Engineering, steel structure and water and electricity) of Sino German company.
We believe that it should still be understood according to the fact that the actual constructor has the right to claim the priority of compensation for the part of his construction 。—.
On December 17, 2018, chengtuo company notified Sino German company of the notice of creditor’s right transfer.
He has published many papers in national and provincial newspapers and periodicals, and also compiled the book legal practice of construction contract disputes of construction projects in 2018.
As of the signing date of this agreement, the debtor Sino German company owed a total of 14.6 million yuan to Party A for the project.
appellee (original plaintiff): Wu dianfei case No.: (2020) Su 08 Minzhong No.
The actual constructor’s priority to be compensated for the project does not comply with the law.
In this case, although Wu dianfei has no construction qualification, the court held that the judicial interpretation did not take the effectiveness of the contract as a prerequisite for priority compensation, and the actual construction contractor has different opinions on the part of his construction The Supreme People’s court’s interpretation on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of construction project contract dispute cases (I) (FSH [2020] No.
He has rich lawyer practical experience and profound legal skills.
Now Party A transfers all the above creditor’s rights, corresponding interest and liquidated damages to Party B, and Party B agrees to accept them.
He has worked in a real estate management department in Huai’an for many years, participated in municipal engineering construction as Party A’s representative of the government for many times, and has rich experience in project site management and construction contract dispute handling.
It is confirmed that the paid project funds are 11.9 million yuan, the unfinished project part is 430000 yuan, the Sino German company still owes 14.17 million yuan of project funds, and chengtuo company transfers the creditor’s rights to the actual constructor Wu dianfei, who has also informed the Sino German company that Wu dianfei’s claim for the Sino German company to pay 14.17 million yuan for the project, is supported.
Zhongde company filed an appeal and held that 1.
At the same time, he served as legal counsel for many companies.
The court of second instance held that whether the project has defects belongs to the scope of performing maintenance obligations and cannot be used as a condition for Zhongde company to refuse to pay the project payment.
Wu dianfei’s request is supported by referring to the litigation request for payment of project funds agreed in the contract.
Referee gist The invalidity of the construction contract of the construction project shall not affect the priority of the actual constructor to the construction part of the project involved.
Therefore, the judgment of first instance that Wu dianfei enjoys the priority compensation right does not violate the law and should be supported The original judgment was upheld in the second instance.
With regard to the right of priority compensation, Wu dianfei claims that the project involved has the right of priority compensation, which is in line with the provisions of the law and is allowed.
About the author the authors Lawyer Xue Feng Lawyer of Jiangsu kaishman law firm, member of the legal team of Daowen construction project, with the qualification of “professional constructor of Construction Engineering” and “real estate economist”.
On April 22, 2016, chengtuo company (Party A) and Wu dianfei (Party B) signed the internal construction agreement of the company , it is agreed that Party A agrees Party B to construct the complex building, dormitory building and 1#-5# assembly workshop of Sino German company.
The project has quality problems and should not be paid; 2.
The court of first instance ruled that the Sino German company should pay 14.17 million yuan for the project in one time within two months after the judgment takes effect, Wu dianfei has the priority to be compensated for the project built.
25) After coming into force, Article 35 stipulates that if a contractor who has entered into a construction contract with the employer requests the price of the construction project to be paid in priority according to Article 807 of the civil code, the people’s court shall support it.
Wu dianfei’s lawsuit of first instance Request: order the Sino German company to pay 14.17 million yuan for the project and enjoy the priority of compensation for the built project.
The lawyer commented on the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of construction contract dispute cases (II) Article 19 stipulates that if the quality of the construction project is qualified and the contractor requests the price of the construction project to be compensated preferentially with respect to the price of the project converted or auctioned, the people’s court shall support it.
The contract price of the project is 26.5 million yuan, and Party B shall independently calculate and be responsible for its own profits and losses during the construction period.
