In fact, the construction of the project involved in the case requires a large amount of funds.
He can sign a qualification borrowing contract as a natural person or as the legal representative of Runze Company, and organize construction.
·Click the blue word “Focus on our judgment gist” Yang * * has the dual status of a natural person and a shareholder and legal representative of Runze Company.
(hereinafter referred to as Senxin Company) and Hunan Jinfang Investment Group Co., Ltd.
It was difficult to negotiate the logic of what he said in this case.
(now renamed Hunan JinFang landscaping Development Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Runze company), which was an error in finding the facts.
Legal representative: Wu * *, the chairman of the company.
Address: No.
On the other hand, Yang * * advocated that the individual actual contract case involved project construction, but also said that he would lend his personal funds to the company and then use them for the project, rather than directly transfer his own funds to the project department for use.
(hereinafter referred to as Jinfang Group), and the civil judgment (2020) No.
（2） The signing of the project engineering responsibility system agreement (hereinafter referred to as the agreement) and the performance of the landscaping construction project construction contract (hereinafter referred to as the construction contract) were all done by Yang * *.
35 of Hunan Higher People’s Court.
The court of second instance did not recognize Yang * *’s signing and performance of the contract in his capacity as a natural person because Yang * * had dual identities as a natural person and the legal representative of Hunan JinFang Runze Environmental Landscape Development Co., Ltd.
1724 retrial applicant (plaintiff in first instance, appellant in second instance): Yang * *, male, born on February 16, 1975, Han nationality, living in Liuyang City, Hunan Province.
Respondent (the third person in the first instance and the appellee in the second instance): Hunan JinFang Investment Group Co., Ltd.
Legal representative: Cao * *, mayor of the city.
Respondent (defendant of first instance and appellee of second instance): People’s Government of Shaoshan City, Hunan Province.
Therefore, in this case, Yang * * cannot be judged as the actual constructor of the project involved in the case based on the above evidence and the surface characteristics of the facts.
Yang * * has no possibility to perform the construction contract as the legal representative of Runze company.
While knowing that Yang * * had the status of legal representative, Runze Company categorically rejected its relevance and denied that Runze Company had the status of actual constructor in the project involved in the case..
Respondent (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance): Hunan senxin Environmental Landscape Engineering Co., Ltd.
Legal representative: Yang * *, executive director of the company.
After investigation, Yang * * did not provide direct evidence such as bank transfer vouchers for transferring funds from his personal account to the account of the project department to prove that he actually invested funds in the project involved.
Whether these funds are invested by Yang * * himself or by Runze company or its affiliated companies as his legal representative is the key to judge the identity and nature of Yang * * signing and performing the contract.
The fact that the project was approved on May 11, 2009, completed and accepted on April 20, 2010, and the amount of project funds was verified in the Audit Report in December 2014 is consistent with the fact that Yang * * claimed that the project cycle was 67 months; According to the industrial and commercial publicity information, Yang * * served as the legal representative of Runze company until April 19, 2010, that is, from April 20, 2010 to December 25, 2014.
The court formed a collegial panel to conduct the review according to law, and the review has now been concluded.
JinFang group does not recognize that Yang * * signed and performed the contract as the legal representative of Runze company.
According to the provisions of Article 108 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court of first instance held that the evidence provided by Yang * * on the fact that “he is the actual constructor of the project involved in the case” did not meet the standard of proof of high probability, so it did not recognize the fact that Yang * * claimed that he was the actual constructor of the project involved in the case.
The retrial applicant Yang * * applied to this court for retrial because of the dispute over the construction contract between the respondent Shaoshan Municipal People’s Government of Hunan Province (hereinafter referred to as Shaoshan Municipal Government), Hunan Senxin Environmental Landscape Engineering Co., Ltd.
1, Yingxiong Road, Qingxi Town, Shaoshan City, Hunan Province.
88, Ansha community neighborhood committee, Ansha Town, Changsha County, Hunan Province.
Although he claimed to provide cash for the project department to pay wages, he did not provide corresponding bank withdrawal vouchers to prove it.
All the projects involved in the case were completed by Yang * *.
Yang * * applied for retrial in accordance with the provisions of Item 1, Item 2, Item 5 and Item 6 of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, requesting that the judgment of the second instance be revoked, and that Shaoshan Municipal Government be ordered to pay Yang * * the project fund of 18745364.5 yuan, and compensate for the unpaid interest loss of the project fund according to the interest rate of similar loans in the same period of the bank and the trading habits until the debt is settled.
Judgment Document Civil Ruling of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (2021) Supreme Famin Shen No.
In the Debate Opinion of the other case, Runze Company clarified that it was not the actual constructor involved in the case.
39 Ziyuan Road, Yuhua District, Changsha, Hunan Province.
The Agreement, as direct evidence, corroborates with other evidence such as the construction contract and its performance, and should be regarded as the main evidence to identify Yang * * as the actual constructor, which should be recognized completely, objectively and positively, rather than subjectively giving “the form subject”; The court of second instance finally took reasoning as the “fact and reason” to deny Yang * *’s identity as the actual constructor, and this determination was unfair and could not be relied on because it did not exhaust the “may or may not” facts.
Address: Floor 7, No.
Facts and reasons: (1) the court of second instance ruled that Yang * * and JinFang group were not the actual constructors of the project involved in the case, which made the construction unit Shaoshan municipal government unnecessary to pay the project funds involved in the case, resulting in a six-year lawsuit, resulting in Shaoshan municipal government becoming a legitimate and unjust beneficiary of the project funds involved in the case.
Address: No.
