-01- Judgment gist: The general contractor is aware of the affiliated relationship and the actual construction behavior of the construction personnel.
Article 1 of the Supplementary Agreement states that “the remaining on-site workload within the original contract shall be continued by Party B in accordance with the original contract agreement”, indicating that the total amount of the project has not changed.
913 of the High people’s court of Henan Province due to the dispute over the construction contract with the respondent He Xi, the defendant in the first instance, China Railway No.6 Engineering Group Co., Ltd., and the third person in the first instance, Dingzhou Haiyuan Construction Co., Ltd.
Under the threat of He Xi, China Railway Sixth Group Beijing Company had to sign a “Supplementary Agreement” with Dingzhou Haiyuan Company (He Xi), which was not the true expression of China Railway Sixth Group Beijing Company’s intention.
The court of second instance did not examine the above facts and found that China Railway Sixth Engineering Group Beijing Company should pay the so-called compensation and interest, lacking evidence to prove it.
In the case where the project involved has been completed and accepted, the actual construction personnel have the right to request the general contractor to pay the project price according to the contract agreement- 02- Brief introduction of the case The retrial applicant, Beijing Railway Construction Co., Ltd.
Facts and reasons: (1) There is new evidence that is sufficient to overturn the second instance judgment.
The Beijing Branch of China Railway No.6 Engineering Group applied for retrial and said that the case should be retried according to the provisions of Paragraph 1, 2 and 6 of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (revised in 2017).
（3） The second instance judgment determined that He Xi’s litigation subject qualification is qualified, and the application of law is incorrect
.
He Xi failed to prove that he has fulfilled the corresponding construction quantities listed in Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement and paid various additional fees.
（2） The basic facts identified in the second instance judgment lack evidence to prove.
(hereinafter referred to as Dingzhou Haiyuan Company), Apply to this court for retrial.
The Court has formed a Judicial panel to conduct review according to law, and the review has now been completed.
China Railway Sixth Bureau Beijing Company has paid a total of 27.93 million yuan to Dingzhou Haiyuan Company based on the actual project quantity, and has basically fulfilled the payment obligations stipulated in the Engineering Labor Subcontracting Contract.
He Xi took advantage of the tight schedule of the “Menghua Railway” of the Beijing Company of China Railway Sixth Engineering Group and the objective need to promote the project progress.
With the threat of delaying the construction period, he repeatedly unilaterally stopped work and even organized construction personnel to block the construction site, causing the construction of the “Menghua Railway” to be forced to stop for nearly three months (according to witness 1’s work log), Beijing Branch of China Railway No.6 Engineering Group Co., Ltd.
of China Railway No.6 Engineering Group (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Company of China Railway No.6 Engineering Group), refused to accept the civil judgment (2020) YMZ No.
once called the police for help and tried to restore order on the construction site (witness the police certificate issued by the police station in Dinghe Town, Xixia County).
