civil judgment

(20 18) Gui 1322 Minchu No.368

Plaintiffs: Zhong Qingxin, *, *.

Authorized Agent: Liao, lawyer of Guangxi Gui Jun Law Firm, with the practice license number of14501201210734134.

Authorized Agent: Wu Duo, intern lawyer of Guangxi Gui Jun Law Firm, with the internship certificate number of 20021701210008.

Defendants: Zhong Shiqiang, *, *, *.

Defendants: Deng,,,.

Authorized Agent: Liang Yuguo, lawyer of Guangxi Huilong Law Firm, with practice licenseNo.:1*-*-* * 4.

Agent ad litem: Li Hui, lawyer of Guangxi Huilong Law Firm, with the practice license number of1*-*-* * 2.

Defendants: Qin Wei, * *, *,.

Defendants: Xu Zhiwei, * *, *,.

Authorized Agent: Huang Yongyang, lawyer of Guangxi Fiona Fang Law Firm, with the practice license number of14501201610783197.

Defendant: Guangxi Dida Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., domicile: Heng Xiuli, Hengyang East Road, Nanning, Guangxi, unified social credit code 914501001994520464.

Legal Representative: Lin Wei, chairman of the board of directors of this company.

Authorized Agent: Lv Jian, employee of this company.

Authorized Agent: Lin Dexin, employee of this company.

Litigation record

In the case of Zhong Qingxin v. Zhong Shiqiang, Deng, after the case was put on file in our hospital, a collegial panel was formed according to law. According to Zhong Qingxin's application, Xu Zhiwei and Guangxi Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. were added as co-defendants, and the application of ordinary procedures was made on July 5, 2065438 (20 17). Defendant Deng refused to accept the appeal. Laibin Intermediate People's Court made a civil ruling (20 17) Gui 13 Minzhong No.992 after hearing the case, and revoked the original judgment and sent it back for retrial on the grounds that the facts of the original judgment were unclear and might affect the fair handling of the case. After the case was put on file for retrial on March 6, 20 18, a collegial panel was formed separately according to the law, and the trial was held in public on September 28, 20 18. The plaintiff Zhong Qingxin and his agent ad litem Liao, the defendant Zhong Shiqiang, Deng's agent ad litem Liang Yuguo, the defendant and his agent ad litem Huang Yongyang, and the defendant Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) entrusted agents ad litem Lu Jian and Lin Dexin to attend the proceedings. The defendant Qin Wei did not appear in court to participate in the litigation without justifiable reasons after the service of litigation materials such as the notice of responding to the lawsuit and the court summons expired. The case has now been closed.

Factual basis

The plaintiff Zhong Qingxin brought a lawsuit to our court: 1. The three defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff 1, 560,000 yuan; Two. The three defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff the liquidated damages of 235,560 yuan from March 9, 2065,438 to August 7, 2065,438, and the liquidated damages from August 8, 2065,438 to the payment date of the project. Total of the above two items 1795560 yuan; Three. The three defendants were ordered to bear all the litigation costs in this case. Facts and reasons: Plaintiff Zhong Qingxin and defendants Qin Wei and Zhong Shiqiang signed a steel structure construction contract on July 12, 2004, stipulating that Plaintiff contracted the construction of Maping Motor Vehicle Driver Testing Center in Xiangzhou County, Laibin City, Guangxi Province, with a total project price of 3.3 million yuan. After the acceptance of the project, except for 3% of the project funds, all the remaining project funds are reserved. If the Employer fails to pay in time, it shall pay 0. 1% of the unpaid amount to the Contractor as liquidated damages every day, and stipulate that the court of jurisdiction over contract disputes is the court of the place where the contract is signed (Maping Town, Xiangzhou County, Laibin City), that is, the People's Court of Xiangzhou County, Guangxi. On October 26th, 2005, Defendant Deng, together with Defendant Zhong Shiqiang and, signed the Labor Subcontract for the Construction Project of Maping Motor Vehicle Driver Testing Center, which confirmed the rights and obligations of both parties in the settlement and payment of project funds. After the plaintiff completed the construction of Maping Motor Vehicle Driver Examination Center as required, after repeated reminders, the three defendants agreed to settle all the remaining project funds before February 23, 20 18, 2065438 * *, but the three defendants failed to fulfill their commitments afterwards. Defendants Zhong Shiqiang and Deng did not issue the reconciliation report of the completed and delivered project to the plaintiff until March 20 16 and March 2065 438+09. After the settlement, the defendant still owes the plaintiff 1 560,000 yuan. On the day of settlement, the defendant Zhong Shiqiang presented two IOUs to the plaintiff, namely 1, 470,000 yuan and 90,000 yuan respectively. However, the defendant has not paid the relevant money to the plaintiff so far. As of August 7, 2065438/kloc-0, the defendant still owed the plaintiff 1560000 yuan, and the penalty was 235560 yuan (the calculation method of penalty is 1560000 yuan × 0.15/). The plaintiff believes that the defendants Zhong Shiqiang and Qin Wei's failure to pay the project payment as agreed and promised is a breach of contract, and the plaintiff has the right to require the defendant to pay the project payment and pay liquidated damages according to law. Defendant Deng and Defendant Zhong Shiqiang operated in partnership and signed a statement of account and a letter of commitment, so they should be jointly and severally liable with Defendant Zhong Shiqiang.

Defendant Deng argued that, firstly, the respondent Zhong Qingxin complained that the respondent was not qualified and that the respondent and the respondent had not signed any engineering contract. The letter of commitment submitted by the respondent and the word "Deng" at the bottom of the actual project schedule were not written by the respondent. There is no engineering contract relationship between the Respondent and the Respondent, and the Respondent has not issued any power of attorney for signing documents or contracts to Zhong Shiqiang and Qin. 2. The contract signed between the Respondent and Xu Zhiwei is a rebate of 20. 1% given by the Respondent to Xu Zhiwei. Then, the rebate of the contract signed by Zhong Shiqiang, Qin Wei and Zhong Qingxin is 65,438+05%. If the respondent completes the whole project in this way and gives Xu Zhiwei 20.65,438+0% and 65,438+05% kickbacks, the respondent will actually pay back the money. Therefore, it is impossible for the respondent to sign such a contract with the respondent Zhong Qingxin. From the point of view of facts and law, the respondent and the respondent have no legal relationship and cannot be the subject of the case. 3. The respondent sealed up the property located at No.24 and No.26 Chengshou Lane, Chengzhong Road, Yizhou City. The respondent and Chen * * * * jointly owned it, and it was illegal for the respondent to seal up Chen's share of property rights in the case. In addition, all the houses that the respondent applied for sealing up have bank loans, and the respondent has mortgaged them to the bank, which is the right holder. Now the applicant's application for seizure is an infringement on the rights and interests of the bank. 4. The respondent asked why he applied to seal up the property of Qin Wei, who owns properties in Liuzhou and Luchuan County. Is there a contractual relationship between the respondent and the respondent? On the contrary, it only sealed up the property of the respondent, which showed the cooperative relationship between the respondent and the Qin and Wei Dynasties. The respondent shall be responsible for its losses. The defendant blindly signed a contract with Qin Wei and Zhong Shiqiang without knowing who the site owner or legal representative was. If Deng knew that the respondent had entered the construction site at such a price, it would be impossible for the respondent to sign a contract with him, and the respondent did not know it from the beginning to the present. 6. Among the evidences submitted by the Respondent, there is an IOU for payment of 90,000 yuan signed by Zhong Shiqiang, which the Respondent claims is the payment for glass. However, in the evidence of the agreement signed with Xu Zhiwei submitted by the respondent, it was clearly stated that the glass installation project was abandoned, and in Evidence 7 submitted by Xu Zhiwei, it was also clearly stated that the glass project was not constructed by the respondent, and there was no glass payment at all, and there was no evidence to prove that the respondent gave the respondent a profit of 90,000 yuan.

The defendant Zhong Shiqiang argued that my reply was consistent with item 6 of Deng's reply.

The defendant Qin Wei did not reply and did not submit any evidence to the court.

Defendant Xu Zhiwei argued that, first of all, the construction contract was true, legal and valid, and the tender was conducted in the name of Dida Company, and the bid bond was remitted to Maping Center from the company's account. The company also admitted that they signed a construction contract, and the seal of Dida Company on the contract is also true and effective, and the contract does not violate the contract law. Second, the glass project claimed by the plaintiff has been installed, and the project payment should be settled by Deng and Maping Motor Vehicle Driver Training and Examination Center, which is not in line with the facts. In fact, due to Deng's limited ability, she gave up the construction of the glass installation project and wrote a written abandonment document. This project is invested by Zhong Qingxin, which is beyond the scope of the project contracted by Deng to Zhong Qingxin. Xu Zhiwei, a local company, should be deducted from the project payment and settled with Zhong Qingxin. Three, the steel structure construction contract is invalid, the interest owed by the project shall be borne by the plaintiff. 4. Xu Zhiwei is the entrusted agent of Dida Company, and was listed as unqualified defendant. The power of attorney and the letter of introduction were issued by Dida Company, and the contract was also signed by Dida Company, and the deposit was also credited to Dida Company's account. 20 1 1, Xu Zhiwei signed a contract with dida company with the fourth branch of dida company, and it has the right to negotiate the project in the name of dida company. The contract stipulates that Xu Zhiwei can open a separate account. Also agreed to pay management fees. Xu Zhiwei doesn't belong to local big companies, but carries out this project on behalf of local big companies. He shouldn't be listed as a defendant, but represents a big local company. The trial of this case should be terminated. It should be based on the judgment of Deng v. Company, Ma Ping Training and Examination Center and the case. Whether Xu Zhiwei bears the responsibility and how much, we won't know until the outcome of the case. . Dida Company is only liable for the arrears within the scope of the project payment owed by Deng.

The defendant company argued: 1. Our company participated in the bidding for the construction project of Maping Motor Vehicle Driver Training and Examination Center, but found that there was no legal procedure for the construction project of Maping Motor Vehicle Driver Training and Examination Center, and our company voluntarily withdrew. According to the relevant provisions of building regulations, construction projects must obtain state-owned land use certificates, planning permits, construction permits, etc. Construction can be started according to law only after the conditions for starting work are met according to law. However, the Maping Motor Vehicle Driver Training and Examination Center where the owner is located cannot provide relevant documents to our company. Our company realized the harmfulness and seriousness of illegal buildings, so we didn't enter the site for construction. According to the Regulations on Quality Management of Construction Projects, the project manager, five members and other project organization and management personnel are responsible for the project quality for life and must be stationed at the site for construction. But no one in our company has been to the construction site of the project involved, and there is no tax record of this project. So far, our company has not received any project payment or project settlement. The quality of the project is lifelong, and our company must not take the blame. Second, Xu Zhiwei is not an employee of our company. He has no social security, salary and attendance records in our company. Our company has never entrusted Xu Zhiwei to sign any form of contract with foreign countries, nor has it entrusted him to engage in any form of construction activities involving this project on behalf of our company. He is the legal representative of Guangxi Rongcan Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. Xu Zhiwei forged the official seal in the name of our company, maliciously fabricated a false contract, and illegally possessed other people's property. First, it signed a construction contract with the construction unit Maping Motor Vehicle Driver Training and Examination Center, forged the official seal, forged the power of attorney, and transferred the project payment to Xu Zhiwei's personal account, which was suspected of forging the official seal, contract fraud, embezzlement of the property of the owner, tax evasion and so on. 4. At the same time, signing labor contracts with plaintiffs and others in the form of fake official seals and fake contracts, deceiving others to work without paying wages, in an attempt to cover up their illegal income from obtaining a large amount of project funds in the form of doing a little project. 5. The seal of the construction contract provided by Xu Zhiwei is verified to be true, but neither our company nor the owner's unit has it, only Xu Zhiwei himself has it, and it was stolen in the labor contract of other engineering sites. 6. According to the provisions of Article 5 of the Supreme Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Criminal Suspects in the Trial of Economic Cases, if the perpetrator steals or embezzles the official seal of the unit, a business letter of introduction, a blank contract stamped with the official seal, or signs an economic contract with the official seal of the unit privately, so as to defraud personal property for possession, use, disposal or other criminal activities, which constitutes a crime, the unit shall not bear civil liability for the economic losses caused by the perpetrator's criminal behavior. Xu Zhiwei's behavior conforms to the relevant provisions of Article 5 of the Regulations, and our company will not bear the responsibility caused by Xu Zhiwei's personal behavior. We implore the court to transfer the case to the public security organ for investigation and handling. Seven. The case was remanded for retrial. The first trial has made it clear that this is Xu Zhiwei's personal behavior and has nothing to do with our company. To sum up, the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin's claim against our company has no factual and legal basis and requests the people's court to reject it according to law.

Our court found through retrial that on September 6th, 201/kloc-0, the defendant Xu Zhiwei, as the head of the fourth branch of the defendant Dida Company, signed the Contract for the Internal Branch of Guangxi Dida Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. with the defendant Dida Company (Party A), stipulating that the head of Party B would be the entrusted agent of Party A and would not apply for the industrial and commercial business license. With the authorization of Party A, Party A can negotiate with other countries on projects within the scope of Party A's qualification. 2065438+On June 30, 2004, the defendant company signed a construction contract with Xiangzhou County Motor Vehicle Driver Training and Testing Center (hereinafter referred to as the Training and Testing Center) in Laibin City, Guangxi Province, stipulating that the defendant company would undertake the municipal engineering of the new building and outdoor road of the Training and Testing Center. After the contract was signed, the defendant Xu Zhiwei entered the site to undertake the project construction in the name of Dida Company. 2065438+On July 6, 2004, the defendant signed a labor subcontracting contract with the defendant Deng, who had no construction qualification and labor subcontracting qualification. It is agreed that the training and examination center will subcontract to the defendant Deng according to the construction drawings provided by the owner and confirmed by the owner, as well as ancillary works, civil works, decoration works, hydropower works and lightning protection works. Deng He is responsible for project contracting and material supply, and is responsible for its own profits and losses. The contract was stamped with the official seal of the defendant's local company, and the defendant and Deng signed the contract respectively. After the contract was signed, the defendant Deng and his partner Zhong Shiqiang began to organize personnel to enter the site for construction. 20 14, 12 On July 2nd, the defendants Zhong Shiqiang and Qin Wei, as the employer (Party A) and entrusted agents, signed a steel structure construction contract with the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin (Party B) who did not have any qualification of construction engineering and labor subcontracting, and purchased the steel structure materials, made off-site workshops, made them on site, derusted and painted them, transported them. The total price of subcontracted works is about 3.3 million yuan. After the contract was signed, the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin entered the site for construction. During this period, the defendants Deng and Zhong Qingxin respectively paid part of the project funds to the plaintiff. On October 26th, 2015438+065438+/kloc-0, the defendant signed a labor subcontracting contract with Deng in his own name, and made a new agreement on the tax management fee collection and project settlement of the subcontracting project of the training and examination center, stipulating that the supplementary agreement on labor subcontracting was the final implementation version of the cooperation between the two parties on this project, which was originally scheduled for July 6th, 20 14. After the project was completed and put into use, the defendants Zhong Shiqiang, Deng and Deng did not pay the project money to the plaintiff. At the urging of the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin, the defendants Zhong Shiqiang and Xu Zhiwei issued a letter of commitment to him, promising that all the remaining project funds of the steel structure of the training and examination center project would be settled before February 23, 2065438. Defendants Zhong Shiqiang and Xu Zhiwei signed the letter of commitment respectively, and Zhong Shiqiang wrote Deng's name in the column of promisor. 2016,65438 On March 9, the defendants Deng and Zhong Shiqiang settled with the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin on the sub-contract training and examination center project, and the settlement result was that the plaintiff still owed 1460445 yuan, and the defendants Deng and Zhong Shiqiang issued a detailed project settlement form signed and approved by the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin. On the same day, the defendant Zhong Shiqiang issued two IOUs with the amounts of 65,438+0,460,000 yuan and 90,000 yuan respectively to the plaintiff. 2016/2017 In August, the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin sued the defendants Zhong Shiqiang, Deng, and filed the above lawsuit.

During the retrial of this case, the defendant company filed an application with our hospital on April 25th, 2065438+2008, arguing that the Construction Contract submitted by Deng Ji Training and Testing Center, the Construction Contract submitted by Deng and the Labor Subcontract submitted by Deng and Deng Di Da Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. were 450 1008007922 and 450/. At present, the appraisal center has issued a judicial appraisal opinion, and the conclusion is: except that the seal on the construction contract evidence submitted by Xu Zhiwei is the same as the seal on the appraisal sample submitted by Dada Company, the other seals and sample seals are not stamped with the same seal.

Other facts identified in the original judgment shall be confirmed by the retrial court.

The court held that: 1. On the validity of the contract. Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Construction Contract Disputes stipulates that in any of the following circumstances, the construction contract shall be deemed invalid in accordance with the provisions of Item (5) of Article 52 of the Contract Law: (1) The contractor has not obtained the qualification of a construction enterprise or exceeded the qualification level; (2) Unqualified actual constructors borrow the name of qualified construction enterprises. Article 57 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC): The invalidity, cancellation or termination of a contract shall not affect the effectiveness of the independent clauses on dispute settlement in the contract. According to the provisions of the above-mentioned laws, it is clear that the principle of qualification subject engaged in construction engineering industry is: it should have construction qualification and labor subcontracting qualification suitable for the project. In this case, the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin and the defendants Zhong Shiqiang, Zhong Shiqiang and Deng were not qualified to carry out the construction of the project involved, so the contract involved was invalid. The contract is invalid and both parties are responsible. However, in view of the fact that the project involved has been delivered as scheduled, there is no fact of overdue completion, and the construction party has not raised any quality objection. Defendants Zhong Shiqiang, Deng did not pay the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin's project payment as agreed, which violated the principle of good faith and should bear legal responsibility for this dispute.

Second, about liquidated damages and related responsibilities. According to Article 58 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses thus suffered. If both parties are at fault, they shall bear corresponding legal responsibilities. As far as this case is concerned, the contract is invalid and the breach clause should not be applied. Therefore, because the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin did not have any construction qualification and labor subcontracting qualification to undertake the project, he violated the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations and was at fault, and his claim for payment of liquidated damages had no legal basis, so our court did not support it.

Third, about agency and joint liability. The defendant was the head of the internal branch affiliated to the defendant's local big company, and he signed a contract with Deng stamped with the seal of the local big company, which made Deng have reason to believe that he had the agency right based on his trust in the local big company and his belief in the authenticity of the seal. As for whether the seal is legal and can be used externally, it is an internal management problem of the local company, and Deng has no obligation to review it. At the same time, Xu Zhiwei holds the business license, copy of power of attorney and other materials stamped with the official seal of local large companies, and stamped with the private seal of Lin Wei, the legal representative of local large companies, which can further prove that local large companies appear in Xu Zhiwei. This proves that there is a close relationship with big companies, and Deng has every reason to believe that he can represent big companies. Therefore, signing a contract with Deng in the name of a local company constitutes an agency by estoppel. If the local company is at fault, it shall bear joint liability within the scope of unpaid project funds. "General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC)" and Article 171 of national laws: If the actor has no agency right, exceeds the agency right or continues to act as an agent after the agency right is terminated, it will have no effect on the principal without ratification by the principal. Driven by economic interests, the defendant Xu Zhiwei signed a contract with Deng in the name of a local company, and also signed a contract with Deng in his own name. This behavior is not authorized or recognized by the local company, so the local company is not responsible for Xu Zhiwei's personal behavior, and the responsibility should be borne by the defendant Xu Zhiwei himself.

Fourth, about the problem of 90,000 yuan in arrears. Defendants Zhong Shiqiang and Deng argued that the amount owed was not the project payment undertaken by the plaintiff, but was written by the defendant Zhong Shiqiang under the coercion or threat of the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin, and the amount did not exist at all, let alone the fact that the defendant made a profit of 90,000 yuan from the respondent. The defendant did not provide any evidence to prove that the debt did not exist or was forced or threatened, so the defense of the defendants Zhong Shiqiang and Deng was not supported by our court.

Five, about the use of seals and the public security organs for the record is inconsistent. Although the seal involved was identified, except the seal of the construction contract submitted by Xu Zhiwei is consistent with the seal of the identification sample submitted by Dada Company, the other seals are inconsistent, so it cannot be completely denied that the seal involved is untrue. Moreover, judging from the evidence provided by Dada Company, the seals actually used are not only the seals filed with the public security organs, that is, the company's external seals are not unique. In this case, as long as the local company once recognized its effectiveness, no matter whether the seal is consistent with the record seal or forged, the company knew the existence and use of the seal and did not take measures to prevent the interests of the opposite party from being damaged, and the legal consequences generated were binding on it. As for whether the defendant Xu Zhiwei's behavior involves a criminal case, it is a different legal relationship from this case and does not belong to the scope of this case.

Six, on whether to terminate the trial of this case. Defendant Xu Zhiwei argued that whether he should bear the responsibility in this case and how much responsibility he should bear should be decided after the trial result of case No.367 (2018) Gui 1322 came out. In our court's opinion, there is no legal conflict between this case and (20 18) Gui 1322 No.367 in the early Republic of China, and the trial of this case is not based on the trial result of this case, so there is no termination of the trial proposed by the defendant in this case.

The court held that

To sum up, According to Article 35 of General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), Item (5) of Article 52 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law, Item (3) of Article 57 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law, Articles 58 and 272 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Construction Law, Article 14 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Construction Law, Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Construction Contract Disputes, Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation and Article 64, paragraph 1, and Article 144 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Civil Procedure Law are decided as follows:

Judgement result

1. The defendants Zhong Shiqiang, Deng Ziqiang and Zhong Qingxin paid the arrears of project funds of 65,438+0,550,000 yuan to the plaintiff within 30 days from the date when this judgment became legally effective;

2. Defendants Xu Zhiwei and Guangxi Dida Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. shall be jointly and severally liable for the above debts within the unpaid project funds;

Three. Reject the plaintiff Zhong Qingxin's other claims.

If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt during the delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with the provisions of Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).

The case acceptance fee is 20960 yuan, and the preservation fee is 5000 yuan, totaling 25960 yuan. The plaintiff Zhong Qingxin paid 2934 yuan, and the defendants Zhong Shiqiang, Deng and Deng paid 23026 yuan. The appraisal fee is 50,000 yuan, which shall be borne by the defendants Xu Zhiwei and Guangxi Dida Construction Engineering Co., Ltd.

If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can submit an appeal to our court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties, and appeal to the Laibin Intermediate People's Court.

Document tail

Chief referee su

Judge area Yuquan

People's Juror Zeng Zhilong

20 18 years 10 month 19 days

Assistant Judge Lan Jie

Bookkeeper Qin Jie

The following are excerpts from relevant legal provisions:

General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC)

Article 35 The debts of a partnership enterprise shall be paid off by the partners with their own property according to the proportion of capital contribution or agreement.

Partners shall be jointly and severally liable for the debts of the partnership, unless otherwise provided by law. Where a partner repays more than his share of the partnership debts, he shall have the right to recover from other partners.

Contract law of the people's Republic of China

Article 52 A contract is invalid under any of the following circumstances:

(5) Violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations.

Article 57 The invalidity, cancellation or termination of a contract shall not affect the effectiveness of the independent dispute settlement clause in the contract.

Article 58 After a contract is invalid or cancelled, the property acquired as a result of the contract shall be returned; If it is impossible or unnecessary to return it, it shall be compensated at a discount. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered as a result. If both parties are at fault, they shall bear their respective responsibilities.

Article 272 A contractor is prohibited from subcontracting a project to a unit that does not have the corresponding qualifications. Subcontractors are prohibited from subcontracting contracted projects. The construction of the main structure of the building project must be completed by the contractor himself.

People's Republic of China (PRC) building law

Fourteenth professional and technical personnel engaged in construction activities shall obtain corresponding qualification certificates according to law and engage in construction activities within the scope permitted by the qualification certificates.

The Supreme People's Court's explanation on the application of law in the trial of construction contract disputes.

Article 1 In case of any of the following circumstances, a construction contract of a building project shall be deemed invalid in accordance with the provisions of Item (5) of Article 52 of the Contract Law:

(a) the contractor has not obtained the qualification of the construction enterprise or exceeded the qualification level;

(2) The unqualified actual constructor borrows the name of a qualified construction enterprise to carry out the construction;

(three) the construction project that must be tendered has not been tendered or the tender is invalid.

Article 2 If the construction contract of a construction project is invalid, but the construction project has passed the completion acceptance, and the contractor requests to pay the project price according to the contract, it shall be supported.

Article 26 If the actual constructor claims rights with the employer as the defendant, the people's court may add the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as a party to the case. The Employer is only liable to the actual constructor within the unpaid project price.

Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedure

Article 2 The parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or to refute the facts of the other party's claims.

If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the facts identified by the parties, the parties with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.

People's Republic of China (PRC) Civil Procedure Law

Article 64 The parties have the responsibility to provide evidence of their own claims.

Article 144 If the defendant refuses to appear in court without justifiable reasons after being summoned by a summons, or withdraws from court without the permission of the court, he may make a judgment by default.