599 civil ruling and brought the case to trial.
Respondent (plaintiff of first instance and appellee of second instance): Zhu Tianjun, male, Han nationality, born on October 26, 1969, lives in Xingqing District, Yinchuan City, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.
On March 29, 2019, the court made (2019) supreme law min Shen No.
1.
2.
Address: No.
The court formed a collegial panel according to law and held a public hearing on November 21, 2019.
Article 26 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of construction contract disputes of construction projects stipulates that “if the actual construction contractor sues with the subcontractor and illegal subcontractor as the defendant, the people’s court shall accept it according to law”.
329 supreme law and people’s re examination applicant (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance): Sichuan Zhongding Construction Engineering Co., Ltd.
The affiliation agreement signed by Zhu Tianjun and Zhongding company on August 26, 2015 did not have the seal of Zhongding company, but only the personal signature of sun Shougang, the legal representative at that time.
Legal representative: Diao Yulin, director of the Bureau.
Wang Huihai, the outsider of the case, submitted an application for suspension of execution to the execution court for the reason that he is the actual construction of the project involved in the case.
3.
Appellee of second instance (defendant of first instance): Wulan County Natural Resources Bureau (formerly Wulan county land and Resources Bureau).
Zhongding company is not jointly and severally liable for the unpaid project funds and interest.
Wulan County Bureau of land and resources made different statements in the lawsuit on whether Zhu Tianjun was the actual constructor.
Legal representative: Bai Yaxin, chairman of the company.
The retrial applicant Sichuan Zhongding Construction Engineering Co., Ltd.
Zhongding company did not know the affiliation agreement and whether Zhu Tianjun was the actual constructor before the lawsuit.
The original judgment found that Zhongding company was jointly and severally liable for the payment of project funds, which was lack of legal basis.
In the case that the employer is not affiliated with the construction party, the construction party shall be jointly and severally liable for the quality of the project.
162 and Qinghai Haixi Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture intermediate people’s Court (2016) qing28 and minchu No.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Yao Juyuan, lawyer of Qinghai guanruo law firm.
The trial of this case has been concluded.
According to the construction management data filed by Wulan County Bureau of land and resources, the authorization of Zhongding company for the project involved in the case is Jin haozhong, not Zhu Tianjun.
2.
Revise the judgment and reject Zhu Tianjun’s lawsuit or Zhu Tianjun’s claim; 3.
Secondly, as the affiliated party, Zhongding company can foresee the worst result when signing the affiliated agreement is the loss of the affiliated fee and the joint and several liability for the project quality and the affiliated person.
Zhu Tianjun argued that Zhu Tianjun was the actual constructor of the project involved in the case, and the judgment of the second instance was correct and should be maintained..
The original judgment is beyond the foreseeable scope of Zhongding company at the time of signing the contract and violates the most simple principles of civil law.
（2） The original judgment found that Zhu Tianjun was the actual constructor of the case, and the evidence was insufficient, and the case may involve a false lawsuit.
Facts and reasons: (1) the application of law in the original judgment is wrong.
Sun Shougang did not hand over his work, accept audit and report his work to the board of directors after his dismissal.
Even if Zhu Tianjun is the actual constructor under the affiliated relationship, he does not have the qualification of the plaintiff.
Zhongding company appointed sun Shougang as the legal representative and general manager of the company from July 8, 2015 to August 16, 2017.
The original judgment found that Zhongding company and Zhu Tianjun were affiliated rather than subcontracting and illegal subcontracting.
(hereinafter referred to as Zhongding company) refused to accept the civil judgment (2018) qingminzhong No.
Text: civil judgment of the Supreme People’s Court of the people’s Republic of China (2019) No.
A-03, floor 1, building 1, No.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Hu Guohui, lawyer of Qinghai Junjian law firm.
The agreement did not specify the specific project name.
162 of Qinghai Higher People’s court and applied to this court for retrial due to the case of construction contract dispute with the respondent Zhu Tianjun and the appellee Wulan County Natural Resources Bureau of second instance.
1.
4, Chezhan Road, Wulan County, Haixi Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Qinghai Province.
The original judgment is wrong to apply Article 26.
Wang Shujun, the entrusted agent ad litem of the retrial applicant Zhongding company, Hu Guohui, the entrusted agent ad litem of the respondent Zhu Tianjun, and Yao Juyuan, the entrusted agent ad litem of the second instance respondent Wulan County Natural Resources Bureau, attended the court.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Wang Shujun, lawyer of Sichuan Bashi law firm.
13; 2.
Address: No.
Sun Shougang was dismissed on August 11, 2017 for failing to comply with the legal provisions and the company’s system during his tenure as a legal person.
The case has entered the execution stage, and the construction funds have been transferred from the employer’s account to the court.
Zhongding company applied for retrial and claimed that: 1.
Source: the Supreme People’s court and China judicial document network [gist of judgment] the Supreme People’s court held that Zhu Tianjun borrowed the qualification of Zhongding company to sign the construction contract involved in the case with Wulan County Bureau of land and resources, and Zhongding company, as the borrowed qualification party, lacked the true intention to sign the construction contract with the employer Wulan County Bureau of land and resources, There is no substantive legal relationship between Zhongding company and Wulan County Bureau of land and resources.
The legal costs of this case shall be borne by Zhu Tianjun.
1, Biyun Road, Wuhou District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province.
Revoke the civil judgments of Qinghai Higher People’s Court (2018) qingminzhong No.
In this case, Zhu Tianjun, as the actual constructor of the project involved in the case, formed a de facto legal relationship with the employer Wulan County Bureau of land and resources in the process of signing and performing the construction contract, and Zhu Tianjun has the right to claim the project payment from Wulan County Bureau of land and resources.
When Zhongding company learned about the situation from Wulan County Bureau of land and resources, Wulan County Bureau of land and Resources said that Jin haozhong was responsible for the actual construction of the project, not Zhu Tianjun.
Sun Shougang is now on file for investigation on suspicion of job occupation, which does not rule out the possibility that the affiliation agreement was forged between him and Zhu Tianjun.
