Legal representative: Cheng Jianwu, general manager of the company.
Address: No.
（3） Kangfute has an internal contracting legal relationship with caohongyan and chengjianwu.
（2） Kangfute company has no rights and interests in the project involved, and Cao Hongyan and Cheng Jianwu do not share the project funds privately.
Neither the parties nor their agents expressed debate opinions on whether the right of subrogation was established.
What caohongyan proposed was a dispute lawsuit over the construction project contract, not a creditor’s subrogation lawsuit, and this case cannot be judged by subrogation; Whether the creditor’s right between caohongyan and comfort is legal or not, and the amount has not been determined; When Cao Hongyan sued, the principal creditor’s right was not determined or expired; Kangfute company is not lazy in exercising its due creditor’s rights; During the trial of this case, the court of second instance did not explain that it was necessary to change the cause of the case, and Cao Hongyan did not change his claim to claim his right of subrogation.
Instead, he has the right to claim the profit distribution of the construction project of the project he completed before leaving the site.
The tax payment of the project involved and the tax payment of comfort company have nothing to do with this case..
In conclusion, Kangfute company applies to the court for retrial in accordance with items 2, 6, 9 and 11 of article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China.
How much cost should be deducted from the project payment by comfort company is uncertain, and the proportion of project risks that Cao Hongyan and Cheng Jianwu should bear is also uncertain.
（2） The partnership agreement in this case was not substantially implemented.
It believed that the reason why the judgment of the first and second instance infringed on his right of action was not tenable.
Legal representative: Zhang Lianchen, chairman of the company.
The examination by the collegial panel has been completed according to law.
963 (hereinafter referred to as the judgment of second instance) of Hubei Provincial high-level people’s court and applied to this court for retrial.
Respondent (plaintiff of first instance and appellee of second instance): Cao Hongyan, male, born on December 25, 1967, Han nationality, lives in Wuhan, Hubei Province.
The project risks that Cao Hongyan and Cheng Jianwu should bear do not belong to the scope of subrogation claim.
Comfort company only charged a license borrowing fee of 100000 yuan, only assisted in handling the nominal relevant procedures, did not enjoy the project rights and interests, did not bear the project risks, and had no right to control the project.
(hereinafter referred to as Kangfute company), Cheng Jianwu and the respondent Cao Hongyan and Shenyang Huarui Century Investment Development Co., Ltd.
Welcome to click the blue word above to pay attention! In case of any objection, contact and delete the civil ruling of the Supreme People’s Court of the people’s Republic of China (2019) supreme law min Shen No.
Caohongyan submitted a written opinion saying that: (1) comfort company and chengjianwu did not provide evidence to prove the fact that caohongyan withdrew his capital and left the site on his own.
Entrusted agent ad litem: yuhaibo, a lawyer of Beijing Jingshi (Wuhan) law firm.
The court of first and second instance did not accept the bank records of Kangfute Shenyang Branch, and did not find out that Cao Hongyan and Chen Wenlong had zero investment in the project involved.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Yu Meijia, lawyer of Beijing Jingshi (Wuhan) law firm.
Address: room 1508, No.
Retrial applicant (plaintiff of the first instance and appellant of the second instance): chengjianwu, male, born on December 24, 1958, Han nationality, lives in Wuhan, Hubei Province.
（2） In the trial, the court of second instance did not explain the change of the cause of the case, nor did it organize the parties to provide evidence and cross examination on whether the right of subrogation was established.
When Cao Hongyan left the project involved in April 2014, the project was not completed.
Comfort applied for retrial and claimed that (1) the applicable law of the judgment of the second instance was obviously wrong, and there were no applicable conditions for the right of subrogation in this case, even if the right of subrogation was applicable, it was not established.
1857 retrial applicant (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance): Hubei Kangfute air conditioning Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd.
Cao Hongyan sued Kangfute company in October 2014.
Entrusted agent ad litem: chengjianqian (spouse of chengjianwu), female, born on October 6th, 1958, Han nationality, living in Wuhan, Hubei Province.
（3） The court of first instance added chengjianwu as the plaintiff to participate in the lawsuit, which is against my will.
(hereinafter referred to as Huarui company), he refused to accept the civil judgment (2018) e min Zhong No.
Chengjianwu applied to the court for retrial in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 11 of article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China.
Cao Hongyan’s prosecution is not qualified.
Caohongyan has no right to claim the project funds involved.
Respondent (defendant of first instance): Shenyang Huarui Century Investment Development Co., Ltd.
The court of second instance directly adjudicated with the right of subrogation in the case of construction contract disputes, which obviously deprived Kangfute of its right to provide evidence and cross examination on the right of subrogation and express debate opinions.
1, Zhongnan Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province.
The judgment of the second instance that Huarui company paid the project payment and returned the deposit to Cao Hongyan and Cheng Jianwu is to turn the income right enjoyed by Cao Hongyan and Cheng Jianwu into sub project payment, In essence, it belongs to overpayment, which infringes upon the legitimate rights of comfort company.
In the retrial of the case of construction project contract dispute between the applicant Hubei Kangfute air conditioning Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd.
9, Tuanjie Road, Shenhe District, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province.
The actual completion time of the project involved was after August 2015.
The court of first and second instance in this case ignored the fact that caohongyan withdrew his capital and left the site on his own, ignored the fact that the closing project and three-year maintenance of the project involved were completed by comfort, ignored the objective fact that caohongyan secretly divided the project funds involved in the case to evade state taxes in the early stage, ignored the objective fact that all the financial books of the project involved were occupied by caohongyan, and ignored the fact that comfort paid corporate income tax on behalf of comfort The fact that the value-added tax was not paid and the individual income tax was to be paid back caused great damage to the interests of comfort in the project involved.
Cheng Jianwu applied for retrial and said: (1) Cheng Jianwu is the legal representative of Kangfute company and the constructor of the project involved.
