Party information
Plaintiff: Beijing Jiu 'an Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd., located at Floor 6, Building 23-2 1, Changping Life Science Park Road, Haidian District, Beijing.
Legal Representative: Dai Richeng, executive director.
Authorized Agent: Guo Yong, male, born on, Han nationality, employee of this company.
Authorized Agent: Liu Kai, male, born on, Han nationality, employee of this company.
Defendant: Xuntong (Beijing) Trenchless Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., domiciled in Tongzhou District, Beijing.
Legal Representative: Hao Yang, general manager.
Authorized Agent: Li Kaiwei, lawyer of Beijing Yige Law Firm.
Trial process
After the plaintiff Beijing Jiuan Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and the defendant Xuntong (Beijing) Trenchless Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) filed the case, our court applied summary procedures according to law and held a public hearing. Guo Yong, the plaintiff's agent ad litem, Hao Yang, the defendant's legal agent, and Li Kaiwei, the plaintiff's agent ad litem, attended the proceedings in court. The case has now been closed.
Plaintiff's point of view
The plaintiff brought a lawsuit to our hospital: 1. Ordered the defendant to return 900,000 yuan to the plaintiff; 2. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff interest of 65,438+099,737.5 yuan (based on 900,000 yuan, with reference to the benchmark interest rate of the People's Bank of China for the same period, the provisional interest was 65,438+099,737.5 yuan, from February 2065,438+06 to September 25, 2020); The legal costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant. Facts and reasons: From 2065438 to July 2005, the defendant signed the Labor Subcontract for Housing Construction and Municipal Infrastructure Project of Jinyang Sewage Treatment Plant in Taiyuan with Beijing Bi Shuiyuan Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Bi Shuiyuan Company"). Bi Shuiyuan Company was the labor contractor, and the plaintiff was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bi Shuiyuan Company, but the plaintiff and this project, 2015/kloc- Based on this, the plaintiff paid the defendant 200,000 yuan in 2065, 438+05, 65, 438+00, 65 and 438+05, respectively, and the bank electronic receipt was accompanied by "labor fee for water inlet pipeline"; 2015110/0/0/0 16 paid RMB 200,000.00 Yuan to the defendant, and the electronic receipt of the bank was accompanied by the words "labor fee for work robbery"; 20 15 12.23 and 1.500000 yuan were paid to the defendant, and the postscript of the bank electronic receipt was "labor cost of water intake pipeline project". So far, the defendant has paid 1, 900,000 yuan to the plaintiff. After that, the defendant returned the plaintiff 1 million yuan twice, and the remaining 900,000 yuan was not returned. In view of this project, the defendant and Bi Shuiyuan Company could not reach an agreement due to reconciliation. On September 23rd, 20 19, they filed a lawsuit with Jinyuan District People's Court of Taiyuan City (case number: related case), demanding Bi Shuiyuan Company to pay its unpaid labor remuneration, which involved 900,000 yuan paid by the plaintiff on behalf of Bi Shuiyuan Company but not returned by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the unpaid RMB 900,000 was the labor remuneration paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for Bi Shuiyuan Company, which should be deducted from the labor remuneration owed to the defendant by Bi Shuiyuan. After hearing the case, Jinyuan District People's Court did not recognize 900,000 yuan as the labor remuneration paid by the plaintiff for Bi Shuiyuan Company. Houbishuiyuan Company appealed to Taiyuan Intermediate People's Court (case number: related case), and Taiyuan Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment, that is, Jinyuan District People's Court and Taiyuan Intermediate People's Court did not recognize the plaintiff's payment of 900,000 yuan to the defendant to pay Bi Shuiyuan Company's labor remuneration. The plaintiff paid the defendant 900,000 yuan for the "General Contracting Project of Taiyuan Jinyang Sewage Treatment Plant Phase I Project", which was rejected by the above two courts. The plaintiff has nothing to do with this project, and the defendant has no reason and legal basis to collect the above money except the labor remuneration paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for Bi Shuiyuan. The defendant has not returned 900,000 yuan to the plaintiff so far, and the plaintiff thinks that the defendant should not only return 900,000 yuan to the plaintiff, but also bear the plaintiff's interest loss. In order to safeguard the legitimate interests of the plaintiff, we sue the plaintiff to your hospital, and we urge your hospital to make a judgment as required.
Defendant's point of view
The defendant argued that, firstly, the 900,000 yuan paid by the plaintiff to the defendant was a labor fee, not an unjust enrichment. (1) Bi Shuiyuan Company, as the contractor of the first-phase project of Jinyang Sewage Treatment Plant in Taiyuan City led by Bi Shuiyuan Company, signed the Labor Subcontract for Housing Construction and Municipal Infrastructure Engineering (hereinafter referred to as the Labor Subcontract) with the defendant on July 20 15. The plaintiff is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bi Shuiyuan Company, and manages the construction of the project on its behalf. In the process of on-site construction, the plaintiff arranged for the defendant to rob the construction period, which led to an increase in engineering quantity. The actual cost of out-of-contract works due to the rush for construction period is1479,248.2 yuan, which exceeds 900,000 yuan paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. For the unpaid part, the defendant has filed a counterclaim with your hospital. In order to ensure the smooth completion of the project task, the plaintiff paid the defendant 1 900,000 yuan in three installments, and indicated "water intake pipeline engineering fee", "water intake pipeline engineering labor fee" and "water intake pipeline engineering labor fee" in each transfer remittance. Afterwards, the outsider Bi Shuiyuan Company and the plaintiff negotiated with the defendant, hoping that the defendant would return the paid labor fee to facilitate financial accounting, and the outsider Bi Shuiyuan Company would pay the corresponding labor fee. Due to the long-term friendly cooperation between the two parties, the defendant did not give too much consideration, and directly transferred back 6,543,800 yuan. However, Bi Shuiyuan Company and the plaintiff failed to keep their promises, refused to pay the corresponding project funds, and even went back on their words and refused to recognize the actual amount of subcontracted labor services. However, all the increased quantities were arranged by the plaintiff company, namely the project director Zhang Jin. I hope your institute can check with him to see if there is any problem of increasing the engineering quantity due to the rush of construction period. (2) In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for unjust enrichment, which contradicted the "project payment" identified by its parent company, Bi Shuiyuan Company, in the first-instance and second-instance proceedings with the defendant (page 3 of the first-instance judgment and page 1 of the second-instance judgment). The postscript of the plaintiff's remittance to the defendant every time also proves the actual nature of the money, which should be the labor fee. Second, to take a step back, even if the 900,000 yuan involved is deemed as unjust enrichment, it has exceeded the statute of limitations. The so-called unjust enrichment refers to obtaining improper benefits without legal basis and causing losses to others, and the obtained improper benefits should be returned to the person who suffered losses. According to Article 8 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Prescription System in the Trial of Civil Cases, the prescription period for returning the claim for unjust enrichment shall be counted from the day when one party knows or should know the facts of unjust enrichment and notify the other party. In this case, the plaintiff paid 1.9 million yuan, which were 20 15, 20 15, 16, 438+06, 200,000 yuan and 20 18 respectively. To sum up, the defendant thinks that the plaintiff's claim and cause of action have no legal basis, and the thinking logic is contradictory, and the case exceeds the limitation of action, which is enough to support the court to reject the plaintiff's claim.
Case facts
The parties to this case submitted evidence according to law around the litigation request, and our hospital organized the parties to conduct cross-examination. There is no objection to the evidence of the parties, which is confirmed by our hospital and supported in the volume.
According to the statements of the parties and the evidence confirmed by examination, our court finds the facts as follows:
2065438+In July 2005, Bi Shuiyuan Company signed a labor subcontract with the defendant for housing construction and municipal infrastructure projects, and the defendant was the labor contractor.
In addition, the plaintiff is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bi Shuiyuan Company. On June 23rd, 2006, the plaintiff remitted 200 yuan to the defendant's account by bank transfer for three times. On February 1 2006, the defendant transferred 230 yuan to the plaintiff's account twice.
000 yuan and 770,000 yuan, * * * is 1 000,000 yuan (afterwords are all labor costs).
Check again. On September 23, 2009, the defendant sued Bi Shuiyuan Company to the Jinyuan District People's Court of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province on the grounds of construction contract dispute, demanding that Bi Shuiyuan Company pay the defendant the labor subcontracting fee of 2 1 17824.05 yuan and the interest loss. Jinyuan District People's Court made a civil judgment on related cases on 2019165438+10/0, and held that "our hospital can't verify the authenticity of the increased fees, and the plaintiff can claim this part of the rights separately after collecting relevant evidence. ..... The economic dispute between the defendant and the outsider Beijing Jiu 'an Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. is more appropriate to be handled through another case. After Bishuiyuan Company filed an appeal, it held that "the court of first instance did not deduct 900,000 yuan when it found that the appellant paid the labor fee between the appellees, and it should be revoked when it found the facts and applied the law incorrectly. "The Intermediate People's Court of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province made a civil judgment on the relevant case, holding that:" The court of first instance found that the money exchange between the appellee and Beijing Jiu 'an Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. should be resolved separately, and it was not improper for the appellant to pay the project labor fee of 1063444.86 yuan to the appellee. " The judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
2. On August 20th, 2020, with the approval of Beijing Tongzhou District Market Supervision Administration, the name of the defendant was changed from "Beijing Jiutong Trenchless Engineering Co., Ltd." to its current name.
The above facts are proved by the electronic receipt of the bank, the civil judgment of relevant cases, the civil judgment of relevant cases and the statements of both parties.
Court view
The court held that if improper benefits were obtained without legal basis and losses were caused to others, the improper benefits obtained should be returned to the person who suffered losses. In this case, according to the ascertained facts, the effective civil judgment of related cases and the civil judgment of related cases do not support Bi Shuiyuan's claim that 900,000 yuan in dispute in this case should be deducted from the labor fee, and it is suggested that the plaintiff and the defendant should negotiate to solve 900,000 yuan separately. As far as 900,000 yuan is concerned, there is no construction contract relationship between plaintiff and defendant. After the plaintiff paid RMB 6.5438+0.9 million to the defendant, the defendant paid RMB 6.5438+0.9 million to the plaintiff. As a subcontractor of housing construction and municipal infrastructure projects in July, 1965, it is unreasonable to pay 6.5438+0 million yuan to the plaintiff without contractual relationship in the name of labor fee. During the trial, the defendant failed to submit evidence to prove the contractual basis or factual basis for paying 900,000 yuan, so he should bear the adverse consequences of not providing evidence. Now the plaintiff's request for the defendant to refund 900,000 yuan and pay interest is reasonable, and our court supports it. As for the calculation standard of interest, after 2065438+August 20, 2009, it is calculated according to the quoted interest rate of the loan market published by the National Interbank Funding Center in the same period. The evidence of the plaintiff's other demands is insufficient, and our court will not support it. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's claim had expired. In our opinion, Bi Shuiyuan Company, as the parent company of the plaintiff, filed a corresponding lawsuit for 900,000 yuan involved in the construction contract dispute lawsuit between Bi Shuiyuan Company and the defendant, which was not accepted by the court, and suggested that the plaintiff and the defendant handle the 900,000 yuan separately. Therefore, the time when the plaintiff knows or should know should be counted from the time when the civil judgment of the relevant case and the civil judgment of the relevant case take effect, so our court does not support the above defense opinions of the defendant. To sum up, according to Article 122 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the judgment is as follows:
Case results
1. The defendant Xuntong (Beijing) Trenchless Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. returned RMB 900,000.00 Yuan to the plaintiff Beijing Jiu 'an Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd., and paid off within seven days after this judgment came into effect;
2. The defendant Xuntong (Beijing) Trenchless Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. paid the plaintiff Beijing Jiu 'an Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. the interest from February 20 16 to September 25, 2020, based on 900,000 yuan, calculated according to the loan interest rate of China People's Bank before August 20 19, and then calculated according to the loan announced by the National Interbank Funding Center in the same period.
Three. Other claims of Beijing Jiuan Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. were rejected.
If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in the 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 acceptance fee of this case is 6,400 yuan, which shall be borne by the defendant Xuntong (Beijing) Trenchless Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. and paid within seven days after this judgment takes effect.
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. At the same time, you can pay the appeal acceptance fee according to the amount of the appeal request filed with the Beijing No.3 Intermediate People's Court against this judgment. If the appeal fee is not paid within seven days after the expiration of the appeal period, the appeal will be withdrawn automatically.