From September 20, 2018 to January 29, 2019, Zheng paid a total of 470000 yuan to Jiang for labor engineering.
In this context, Yanbian state court, as the court making the effective judgment of the second instance of construction engineering cases, the judgment views and opinions reflected in its judgment are of more and more significance for reference to construction engineering cases in this region.
After that, the government mediation failed, and the plaintiff Qu filed a lawsuit with company a as the defendant.
As a person employed by the contractor to provide labor services, Qu did not meet the preconditions for the application of the above judicial interpretation.
Case index: Civil Judgment (2021) Ji 2404 min Chu No.
In this case, Qu claimed that he was employed by Jiang to provide labor services in the cement road project involved, and a labor contract relationship was established between Qu and Jiang.
25) stipulates: “If the actual constructor files a lawsuit against the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the defendant, the people’s court shall accept it.
Gist of judgment: the actual constructor refers to the person who actually performs the Contractor’s obligations.
The plaintiff Qu provided labor services for Jiang.
”The actual construction contractor in this provision refers to the contractor who actually completes the project construction in the construction contract of the construction project, not every labor worker who provides labor services on the construction site.
The focus of dispute ， the focus of dispute in this case is: is Zhongyuan suiqu the actual constructor in this case? Does it have the right to require company a, which has no contractual relationship with it, to bear responsibility? The Hunchun Municipal People’s court held that article 43 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of construction contract disputes (I) (FSH [2020] No.
552 of the people’s Court of Hunchun City, Jilin Province (statement from China’s official account).
Case: facts of the case: defendant a won the bid for cement road project.
Because the author is not directly involved in the trial, he may misunderstand the original intention of the judgment.
The case index is attached at the end of the article.
Zheng is the project manager of Shengding company.
After the completion of construction, Jiang issued an IOU and confirmed that he still owed Qu huaibo 11600 yuan of labor fee.
If the actual constructor claims the rights with the employer as the defendant, the people’s court shall add the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the third party of the case, and bear the responsibility for the actual constructor within the scope of finding out that the employer owes the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor to pay the construction project price.
The official account is devoted to refining and summarizing the rules and mainstream opinions of the courts in Yanbian.
Jiang contracted the labor engineering of the project through Zheng and organized workers to carry out construction.
Extended reading} as for the concept of actual constructor, there is no clear definition in the civil code, construction law and relevant judicial interpretations, which makes it controversial in practice whether the plaintiff bringing a lawsuit is the actual constructor.
Meanwhile, in the process of reporting, he avoids the excessively complicated and ambiguous meaning, and therefore judges.
The implementation of the notice of the Supreme People’s Court on adjusting the standard of the intermediate people’s court for the jurisdiction of civil cases of first instance indicates that all construction project cases originally tried by the Yanbian state court will be under the jurisdiction of the grass-roots courts.
Therefore, Qu’s claim that he required to pay his labor fees on the grounds of illegal subcontracting of company a was groundless in law, and the court did not support it.
The statement is that the public’s collation and induction of the relevant cases are for the purpose of learning and communicating.
There is no tendency to apply the facts and laws in the referee.
The facts identified in the original text have been appropriately deleted.
In this regard, the Supreme People’s court once explained the connotation and extension of the actual constructor as follows: first, the actual constructor is the person who actually performs the Contractor’s obligations, which may be the person who constructs the whole construction project or part of the project; Second, there is no direct or nominal contractual relationship between the actual constructor and the employer; Third, the construction contract signed by the actual constructor is invalid; Fourth, there is no labor and personnel relationship or labor service relationship between the actual constructor and the contractor who has signed a subcontract or illegal subcontract or the construction enterprise lending qualification.
It may be the person who constructs the whole construction project or the part of the project; There is no direct or nominal contractual relationship between the actual constructor and the employer; The construction project contract signed by the actual constructor is invalid; There is no labor and personnel relationship or labor service relationship between the actual constructor and the contractor who has signed a subcontract or illegal subcontract or the construction enterprise lending qualification.
Readers are advised to read the original judgment document…
