Qi surong confirmed the address of service in the court of first instance.
The judgment of the second instance finds that Yangzi construction company, Wang Xue and Bi Rong are the actual constructors of the project involved in the case, which has corresponding basis and is not inappropriate.
Respondent (plaintiff in the first instance and appellee in the second instance): Yangzhou Yangzi construction and Municipal Engineering Co., Ltd., whose domicile is 606, building 2, No.
（2） On whether Wang Xue, Bi Rong and Yangzi construction company are the actual constructors of the project involved in the case.
The court of second instance of this case did not hold a court session, nor did it investigate and question the parties.
7, Yuandong street, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province.
Qi surong did not continue to entrust the entrusted agent ad litem in the first instance to handle the dispute, and the court of second instance only mailed the relevant legal documents to his entrusted agent ad litem in the first instance, resulting in Qi surong losing the opportunity to make a statement and defend.
It was not improper for the court of second instance to mail relevant legal documents to him through the address of service confirmed by the court of first instance.
According to the facts found out in the original trial, after Yangzhou Youshi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.
The court of second instance did not hold a court session to hear the case based on the actual situation of the case.
[judgment view] Article 24 of the Supreme People’s court’s solution on the application of law in the trial of construction contract disputes of construction projects (II) stipulates that the actual construction contractor can claim rights with the employer as the defendant based on the protection of the rights and interests of construction workers in a vulnerable position and breaking through the principle of relativity of debt.
The main facts and reasons are: (1) the procedure of second instance is illegal.
According to Article 6 of several opinions on further strengthening civil service of the Supreme People’s court, the address of service is applicable to the procedure of second instance.
The second instance shall be held in court.
In conclusion, it is requested to reject Qi surong’s application for retrial.
Qi surong did not put forward new facts, evidence and reasons at the stage of second instance.
（2） Wang Xue, Bi Rong and Yangzi construction company are not the actual constructors of the project involved in the case.
（3） On whether Wang Xue, Bi Rong and Yangzi construction company enjoy civil rights and interests sufficient to exclude compulsory execution..
（2） Yangzi construction company, Wang Xue and Bi Rong were the actual constructors of the project involved in the case, and Qingfang construction company did not provide financial and human support and management.
（3） The amount of creditor’s rights enjoyed by Yangzi construction company, Wang Xue and Bi Rong can cover the creditor’s rights involved in the case requiring assistance in execution by the execution court, and the execution objection raised by them complies with the provisions of Article 30 of the guidelines for the trial of execution objection and execution objection litigation cases of Jiangsu Higher People’s Court (III).
Therefore, it is not improper for the court of first instance to support his claim that he shall not execute the project fund creditor’s rights involved in the case.
When Qi surong did not inform the change of the service address in writing, the court of second instance served through the service address confirmed by Qi surong in the first instance, and the procedure was legal.
Qi surong’s claim that the court of second instance served through the service address confirmed by the court of first instance, resulting in the loss of the opportunity of statement and defense, should not be supported.
2.
1.
(hereinafter referred to as Youshi company) contracted the project involved in the case to Qingfang construction company, Qingfang construction company contracted all the project involved in the case to Wang Xue, Bi Rong and Yangzi construction company by signing the internal contracting agreement, and agreed that Wang Xue, Bi Rong and Yangzi construction company contracted labor and materials, Pay the agreed proportion of project management fee to the engine construction company, and be responsible for handling project settlement with the construction unit; In the actual construction process of the project involved in the case, the personnel, finance and materials required are undertaken and managed by Wang Xue, Bi Rong and Yangzi construction company.
Respondent (plaintiff of first instance and appellee of second instance): Wang Xue, male, born on February 7, 1979, Han nationality, lives in Guangling District, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province.
Wang Xue is a shareholder of Qingfang construction company, Bi Rong is an employee of the company, and Wang Xue and Qingfang construction company have mixed personalities.
The court of second instance decided not to hold a court session, and the procedure was legal.
Even if it is the actual constructor, it also enjoys creditor’s rights against the engine construction company, not real rights, and does not have the effect of excluding execution and giving priority to compensation.
Retrial applicant (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance): Qi surong, male, born on June 11, 1974, Han nationality, living in Weiyang District, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province.
Yangzi construction company did not submit the evidence of its investment in funds, materials and labor for the project involved in the case.
As the appellant of the second instance of the case, he did not inform the people’s court in writing to change the address of service.
The third person in the first instance and the appellee in the second instance: Yangzhou Qingfang Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., whose domicile is room 320, building 2, Fangxing East Road, Fangxiang Town, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province.
His claims about the confusion of personality between Wang Xue and Qingfang construction company are lack of evidence and should not be supported.
Yangzi construction company, Wang Xue and Bi Rong submitted opinions that: (1) the procedure of the court of second instance is legal.
Qi surong’s claim of personality confusion between Qingfang construction company and Wang Xue is lack of evidence.
The court of first instance (Supreme Court of second instance) considers that the procedure is the most important.
Qi surong confirmed the address of service in court during the hearing of the first instance.
Respondent (plaintiff of first instance and appellee of second instance): Bi Rong, male, born on March 13, 1973, Han nationality, lives in Hanjiang District, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province.
Qi surong denied this, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to refute it.
The notice of accepting and informing the composition of the collegial panel served by the court of second instance to Qi surong has stated the mailing address and contact number of the materials submitted to the court, but Qi surong did not submit new evidence and other materials to the court of second instance.
The actual constructor of the project involved in the case has passed the completion acceptance of the project, and the evidence submitted by the actual constructor can prove that the amount of project fund creditor’s rights he is entitled to claim can cover the project fund creditor’s rights frozen by the execution court of the case.
Qi surong applied for retrial and said: if the case meets the provisions of items 2, 6 and 9 of article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, it should be retried.
If the written trial is adopted, the parties shall be reviewed, investigated and questioned.
