After the application of Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu, the first instance court entrusted Gansu Jincheng Real Estate Appraisal Co., Ltd.
Therefore, there is no factual or legal basis for Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu to claim that the above entities should bear the responsibility.
The original judgment, based on the appraisal opinion, determined that the case involved engineering funds and was not inappropriate.
（1） Regarding the determination of the amount and losses of the project funds involved in the case, Beijing Century Yuanbo Company subcontracted the project to Shandong Xiantong Company, and subsequently subcontracted it.
The appraisal procedure was legal, and the appraisal content was objective and truthful.
Article 26 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Construction Contract Dispute Cases of Construction Projects gives the actual constructor the right to claim the project price from the employer through breaking the contract relativity, but it does not mean that the actual constructor can claim the project price directly from subcontractors and subcontractors who have no contractual relationship with him.
（2） After reviewing the issue of determining losses such as mechanical equipment rental fees and labor costs, it has been found that for the losses claimed by Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu due to Beijing Century Yuanbo Company, Shandong Xiantong Company, and Shandong Xiantong Fifth Company, the rental fees of 739643.20 yuan from June 2014 to September 2014 in the appraisal report have been included in the project cost, Therefore, the original judgment did not support this and was not inappropriate; However, for the losses of mechanical equipment rental fees, labor costs, etc.
The reason for the re examination application made by Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu regarding the erroneous determination of losses such as mechanical equipment rental fees and labor costs cannot be established, and this court does not support it.
The company issued the appraisal report Gan Jin Gong Jian Zi (2019) No.
The reason for the retrial application of Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu regarding the erroneous determination of the payment subject in the original judgment cannot be established, and this court does not support it.
Furthermore, the provision of this article stipulates that the employer shall be liable to the actual construction party within the scope of the unpaid project price, and does not apply on the premise of invalidity of the contract.
（3） In this case, the illegal subcontractors Beijing Century Yuanbo Company, Shandong Xiantong Company, and Shandong Xiantong Fifth Company have no direct contractual relationship with Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu regarding the determination of the payment subject of the project funds involved.
Case Index: “Dispute Case on Construction Contract of Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., Li Guangzhu, and Other Construction Projects” [(2021) Supreme Law Minshen No.
(2017) Ganminzhong 391 and have become legally effective, the original judgment did not support this loss and is not inappropriate.
The burden of case appraisal fees is a decision made by the people’s court in accordance with the “Measures for Payment of Litigation Costs” and is not a subject matter for retrial applications as stipulated in Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.
3649].
The construction contract involved in the case stipulates that the final settlement of the engineering project is the project price, but there has been no settlement between the parties, so pricing cannot be based on the contract.
Therefore, the original judgment was based on the provisions of Article 26, and it was not inappropriate for the employer Gulang Xinmiao Company to bear the payment responsibility for the project debt involved in the case.
In addition, regarding the issue that the appraisal report claimed by Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu did not refer to the contract list, resulting in the appraisal project payment amount being lower than the actual amount, as they did not provide relevant evidence to prove it, the reason for their application for retrial cannot be established, and this court does not support it.
from September 2014 to July 2017, which have already been dealt with in the civil judgment No.
The above subcontracting and subcontracting behaviors are invalid, and the construction project construction contracts signed between each subcontractor are all invalid contracts.
The focus of the dispute is whether the actual construction worker can directly claim the project price from subcontractors or subcontractors who have no contractual relationship with them? The Supreme Court of Judgment believes that this case is an application for retrial by the parties involved, and should be reviewed in accordance with the reasons for retrial proposed by Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu, as well as Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.
The reason for the retrial application of Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu’s claim that the project price involved in the case should be determined according to the contract agreement cannot be established, and this court does not support it.
Additionally, regarding the issue of bearing the appraisal fees in this case.
The validity of the contract signed between Gulang Xinmiao Company and Beijing Century Yuanbo Company does not affect the application of this article.
Although the actual constructor can claim the project price from the employer through breaking the contract relativity, it does not mean that the actual constructor can claim the project price directly from subcontractors and subcontractors who have no contractual relationship with him.
Can the actual construction personnel directly claim the project price from subcontractors or subcontractors who have no contractual relationship with them? Judgment gist The illegal subcontractor in this case has no direct contractual relationship with the actual constructor.
with relevant qualifications to conduct an appraisal of the project cost involved.
According to Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Construction Contract Disputes, although the project in question has not been completed and accepted, the employer and subcontractors shall pay the corresponding project fees for the completed project between Shaanxi Senmao Hongbo Company and Li Guangzhu.
190-1.
Therefore, this court will not review it.
.
