On October 1, 2009, Datang Thermal Power Plant located it in Huxian No.
Since the interest is a legal fruit, the actual constructor requests the Employer to bear the responsibility within the scope of the unpaid project funds according to Article 26 of the above judicial interpretation, which includes both the principal of the project funds owed by the subcontractors and illegal subcontractors, and the corresponding interest.
According to Article 24 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Construction Contract Disputes (II), the original judgment of Datang Thermal Power Plant was that, within the scope of the unpaid project funds, Datang Thermal Power Plant was jointly and severally liable for the project funds owed by Huilong Company to Shanxi Yaneng Company.
In the lawsuit, the total cost of the project involved in the case was identified as 16710909.37 yuan (tax included).
The Supreme Court: Even if the applicant for enforcement does not accept the payment of debt with property after the execution of the auction, the subject property will not lose its enforceability.
The original trial did not decide whether Datang Thermal Power Plant should bear joint and several liability for the interest of the project funds owed by Huilong within the scope of the project funds owed; 2.
The Supreme Court: The ownership of real estate property rights confirmed by legal documents Even if the person has not been registered for transfer, he or she can also resist the enforcement against the nominal property owner.
（1） As for the interest, the facts were found out according to the original judgment.
As Huilong Company defaulted on the project payment, Shanxi Yaneng Company, as the actual constructor, filed a lawsuit to request the Employer and subcontractors to pay the project payment and the corresponding interest, which led to the lawsuit in this case.
Whether 168951.35 yuan was omitted in the original judgment when calculating the project payment for the self construction part of Huilong Company.
（2） With regard to whether there was any omission in the original judgment when calculating the project payment for the self constructed part of Huilong Company, Huilong Company applied for a retrial and found that the project payment for the self constructed part was 691951.35 yuan.
2 Power Generation Co., Ltd × The construction and installation works of bid sections I and II of the 300MW unit heating transformation heat pipe network project were contracted to Henan Electric Power Construction Company for construction.
The Supreme Court: Can the houses that parents bought and registered as children’s in the name of minor children be enforced because of their parents’ debts? 10.
The main idea of the following text is that because the interest is a legal fruit, if the actual constructor requests the employer to bear the responsibility within the scope of the unpaid project funds, the responsibility includes both the principal of the project funds owed by subcontractors and illegal subcontractors, as well as the corresponding interest.
Case index: Dispute over Construction Contract of Xi’an Thermal Power Plant Construction Project of Henan Huilong Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.
On March 31, 2010, the trial operation of the project involved was qualified, and it was put into use in April 2010.
9.
5.
7.
After deducting the above expenses, Huilong Company owed 9198243.59 yuan (16710909.37-6489665.78 – 500000 – 523000) of the project payment, which should still be paid.
Whereas the company only claimed that Datang Thermal Power Plant would pay the project fund to it within the scope of the project fund owed, and did not involve interest, the court in the second instance decided that Datang Thermal Power Plant should bear joint and several liability for the project fund of 9198243.59 yuan to Huilong Company within the scope of 9778817.01 yuan of the project fund owed, There is nothing wrong with it.
The reason for the retrial of Huilong’s application cannot be established, and the Court will not support it.
The Supreme Court: The bank falsely states its debtor’s business status to recover the loan and swindles the bridge funds to transfer the risk, which constitutes an infringement.
Huilong Company directly paid 500000 yuan in cash to Shanxia Energy Company.
Shanxi Yaneng Company admitted that it had received 6489665.78 yuan of the project payment.
The facts and legal basis were sufficient, and there was no mistake.
Huilong Company applied for retrial and found that the original judgment did not confirm that Datang Thermal Power Plant was wrong to assume the liability of paying off the interest of the project funds owed by Huilong Company to Shanxi Yaneng Company within the scope of the unpaid project funds.
[(2021) Supreme Famin Shen No.
6.
The Supreme Court: The act of holding the shares of listed companies anonymously shall be invalid.
The original judgment only recognized 523000 yuan, and 168951.35 yuan was omitted..
Selected articles from previous periods, When the debtor raises an objection on the ground of waiting to seal up the amount exceeding the limit, it does not support it, The commercial housing sales contract signed by consumers cannot resist the sealing effect of the people’s court.
Pursue the essence of the application of law, understand the norms of legal acts, and use logic and experience to perceive the temperature of legal life.
8.
If the actual constructor requests the employer to assume responsibility within the scope of the unpaid project funds, does the responsibility only refer to the principal of the project funds? The Supreme Court held that: the main issues that should be examined in this case are: 1.
Later, Henan Electric Power Construction Company subcontracted the whole project involved to Huilong Company for construction, and Huilong Company subcontracted to Shanxi Yaneng Company for specific construction.
Huilong Company paid 523000 yuan to a third party on behalf of Shanxia Energy Company.
1400], the focus of dispute.
In this case, the court heard the lawsuit around the plaintiff Shanxianeng Company in the first instance.
The Supreme Court: The creditor cannot have the effect of interrupting the time limit of action when he cannot confirm the delivery of the notice only by mailing it through a general express company.
and Datang Shaanxi Power Generation Co., Ltd.
At the same time, after reviewing the payment of Datang Thermal Power Plant, the employer of the project involved, item by item, it was confirmed that the amount paid was 6932092.36 yuan, and the amount owed was 9778817.01 yuan (16710909.37-6932092.36 yuan).
