[court decision] the Supreme Court held that the fact that le and his team formed a labor legal relationship with Peng was clear.
According to the judgment of the second instance, it was found that the construction company voluntarily assumed the payment obligation of Peng’s default in the labor fee of Le by way of debt addition, which has corresponding grounds.
[brief description of the case] Peng is the actual constructor of the commercial plaza project of the real estate company.
In view of the bankruptcy reorganization of the construction company, if you can only ask Peng and the construction company for project funds, its legitimate rights and interests will not be protected, which is also contrary to the purpose and spirit of the above judicial interpretation.
He is affiliated with the construction company for construction.
5594 of supreme law and min Shen) [key points of case handling] In practice, the contractor in legal professional subcontracting and labor subcontracting is not recognized as the actual constructor..
If the actual construction contractor claims rights against the employer as the defendant, the people’s court shall add the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the third party in the case, and make a judgment on the employer after finding out the amount of the construction project price owed by the employer to the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor The Contractor shall be liable to the actual contractor within the scope of the unpaid construction project price.
[focus of dispute] whether the real estate company should bear the payment responsibility for the debts involved in the case within the scope of the project funds owed.
The employer shall be liable to the actual construction contractor only to the extent of the unpaid project price.” In view of the labor legal relationship between le and Peng, Le (team) As a person employed by Peng to engage in mud and water labor service, he is not the actual constructor in the above legal sense.
The fact that Peng defaulted 359849.50 yuan in the labor fee of Le (team) is clear.
(No.
In this case, the provisions of 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 that the actual constructors can claim rights from the employer within the scope of unpaid project price can be applied, Le has the right to claim rights from the employer’s real estate company.
If the actual construction contractor claims rights with the employer as the defendant, the people’s court may add the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the party to the case.
Le also applied for payment of “labor fee of 359849.50 yuan and interest” in this case, and it was also recognized that the arrears were “migrant workers’ wages” in the application for retrial.
On January 10, 2017, Peng confirmed that 359849.50 yuan should be paid to le (team) in the project labor wage payment table signed by Peng; Yue refused to accept the judgment of the provincial high court and applied to the Supreme Court for retrial, saying that Yue and his team are engaged in construction work and are also actual constructors.
The construction company has an internal contracting relationship with Peng, and le is the head of the muddy water team in the commercial plaza project; On November 15, 2016, the construction company (Party A) and Lemou (Party B) signed an agreement on the arrears of labor expenses of Party B by Peng, the internal contractor.
As the contractor of the project involved in the case, the construction company signed an agreement with le on Peng’s default in the above labor fee.
Therefore, the judgment of the second instance found that there was no construction contract relationship between le and Peng, and it was not improper to classify the cause of this case as a labor contract dispute.
The judgment of the second instance found that the case does not meet the preconditions for the application of Article 26 of the above judicial interpretation, has corresponding factual basis, and is not an error in the application of the law.
[relevant rules] interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects (I) Article 43 If the actual construction contractor brings a lawsuit against the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the defendant, the people’s court shall accept it according to law.
Article 26 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects stipulates: “If the actual construction contractor brings a lawsuit against the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the defendant, the people’s court shall accept it according to law.
As a result, the legitimate rights and interests of migrant workers will suffer losses, thus undermining social harmony and stability.
[case index] (2019) full text of civil ruling document on Retrial review and trial supervision of labor contract disputes between Le Mou and Fujian Sihai Construction Co., Ltd.
Le requested the real estate company of the employer of the project involved in the case to be within the scope of unpaid project funds on the basis of this provision There is no corresponding factual basis and legal basis for assuming the liability for repayment.
