>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Jiangsu Nantong Liujian Construction Group Co., Ltd. v. Hengshui Hongtai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (Dispute over a construction contract for a construction project)
江苏南通六建建设集团有限公司与衡水鸿泰房地产开发有限公司建设工程施工合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Jiangsu Nantong Liujian Construction Group Co., Ltd. v. Hengshui Hongtai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (Dispute over a construction contract for a construction project)
江苏南通六建建设集团有限公司与衡水鸿泰房地产开发有限公司建设工程施工合同纠纷案
Jiangsu Nantong Liujian Construction Group Co., Ltd. v. Hengshui Hongtai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (Dispute over a construction contract for a construction project) 

江苏南通六建建设集团有限公司与衡水鸿泰房地产开发有限公司建设工程施工合同纠纷案

[Judgment Abstract] 【裁判摘要】
Article 205 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China prescribes that “A party which petitions for retrial shall file a petition for retrial within six months from the effective date of a judgment or ruling; or under the circumstances of item (1), (3), (12) or (13) of Article 200 of this Law, file a petition for retrial within six months from the day when the party knows or should have known.” The aforesaid article prescribes the time limit for a party's petition for retrial. The law prescribes the time limit for a party's petition for retrial for purposes of maintaining the res judicata of an effective judgment and avoiding the possible long-term unstable state where retrial may be petitioned against the relation of legal rights and obligations determined in the effective judgment, so as to maintain the stability of social relations; and urging the parties to exercise the right to petition for retrial in a timely manner and avoiding impacts on the reliance interests of the opposite party in the effective judgment. Accordingly, where a party petitions for retrial according to other matters not prescribed in item (1), (3), (12) or (13) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law, it shall file the petition within six months from the effective date of the judgment or ruling; where a party raises other retrial matters while filing a petition for retrial in accordance with item (1), (3), (12) or (13) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law after the judgment or ruling has taken effect for six months, the people's court would not examine such retrial matters. 中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百零五条规定,当事人申请再审,应当在判决、裁定发生法律效力后六个月内提出;有本法第二百条第一项、第三项、第十二项、第十三项规定情形的,自知道或者应当知道之日起六个月内提出。本条是关于当事人申请再审期限的规定。法律之所以规定当事人申请再审期限,一方面是为了维护生效判决的既判力,避免经生效判决所确定的法律权利义务关系长期处于可能被提起再审的不安定状态,从而维护社会关系的稳定;另一方面是为了督促当事人及时行使申请再审的权利,避免影响对方当事人对生效判决稳定性的信赖利益。据此,当事人依据民事诉讼法二百条第一项、第三项、第十二项、第十三项以外的其他事由申请再审,应当在判决、裁定发生法律效力后六个月内提出;而当事人在判决、裁定发生法律效力六个月后,依据民事诉讼法二百条第一项、第三项、第十二项、第十三项规定申请再审的同时,一并提起其他再审事由的,人民法院不予审查。
Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国最高人民法院
Civil Ruling 民事裁定书
(No. 6278 [2018], Petition, Civil Division, SPC) (2018)最高法民申6278号
Petitioner for retrial (plaintiff in first instance, defendant in counterclaim, and appellant in second instance): Jiangsu Nantong Liujian Construction Group Co., Ltd., domiciled in No. 336, Fushou Road, Rucheng Township, Rugao City, Jiangsu Province. 再审申请人(一审原告、反诉被告,二审上诉人):江苏南通六建建设集团有限公司,住所地江苏省如皋市如城镇福寿路336号。
Legal representative: Shen Weidong, General Management of the Company. 法定代表人:沈卫东,该公司总经理。
Attorney: Li Qiang, lawyer from Hebei Century United Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:李强,河北世纪联合律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Liu Miao, lawyer from Hebei Century United Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:刘苗,河北世纪联合律师事务所律师。
Respondent (defendant in first instance, plaintiff in counterclaim, and appellant in second instance): Hengshui Hongtai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., domiciled in Room 309, Taocheng Branch of the Land and Resources Bureau, No. 8 Yongxing Road, Taocheng District, Hengshui City, Hebei Province. 被申请人(一审被告、反诉原告,二审上诉人):衡水鸿泰房地产开发有限公司,住所地河北省衡水市桃城区永兴路8号国土资源局桃城分局309室。
Legal representative: Bai Yunxiang, Manager of the Company. 法定代表人:白蕴祥,该公司经理。
Petitioner for retrial, Jiangsu Nantong Liujian Construction Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nantong Liujian”) refused to accept the civil judgment (No. 330 [2013], Final, Civil Division I, HPC, Hebei) entered by the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province for the case of dispute over a construction contract for a construction project between it and respondent Hengshui Hongtai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hongtai Company”) and filed a petition for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. The Supreme People's Court formed a collegial bench to examine this case and the examination has been concluded. 再审申请人江苏南通六建建设集团有限公司(以下简称南通六建)因与被申请人衡水鸿泰房地产开发有限公司(以下简称鸿泰公司)建设工程施工合同纠纷一案,不服河北省高级人民法院(2013)冀民一终字第330号民事判决,向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审查,现已审查终结。
In the petition for retrial, Nantong Liujian alleged that: (1) It was specified in the new evidence, the Notice of Non-conformity of Fire Control Design of the Construction Project in the Recordation Inspection issued by the Fire Control Detachment of the Public Security Bureau of Hengshui City, that in the fire control design materials for the No. 6 and 8 residential buildings in the CBD Dongdu Residential Area as submitted by Hongtai Company, some fire control design in the project did not conform to the provisions of the relevant technical standards for fire control and the fire control design was not up to the standard. Therefore, since the project invovled has passed the completion acceptance, the fundamental reason for failure to pass the comprehensive acceptance was non-conformity of Hongtai Company's fire control design rather than Nantong Liujian's fault. (2) In the judgment of second instance, Nantong Liujian was ordered to deliver the project acceptance materials of Hongtai Company in advance and such delivery was used as the precondition for Hongtai Company's payment of the project funds, which did not conform to the contractual stipulations and was an erroneous fact-finding. (3) It was erroneous for the judgment of second instance to order Hongtai Company to pay Nantong Liujian the project funds of CNY4,174,750 and the actual amount of project funds owed by Hongtai Company was CNY12,793,785. (4) The judgment of second instance did not uphold the claim of Nantong Liujian that the deduction should be reduced by 7% on the basis of the original amount, which violated the contractual stipulations. (5) The judgment of second instance determined that Nantong Liujian waived the claim for “liquidated damages and other losses,” which was an erroneous fact-finding. (6) The judgment of second instance that the cooperation cost of CNY149,000 and the cost of CNY530,400 for replacing heat meters should be deducted from the payable project funds lacked factual and legal basis. In conclusion, Nantong Liujian filed a petition for retrial in accordance with the provisions of item (1) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Procedure Law”). 南通六建申请再审称,一、新证据衡水市公安消防支队于2018年9月5日作出的《建设工程消防设计备案检查不合格通知书》载明:鸿泰公司报送的CBD东都6某、8某住宅楼工程消防设计文件,该工程部分消防设计不符合相关消防技术标准的规定,消防设计不合格。故涉案工程本身已通过竣工验收,未通过综合验收的根本原因是鸿泰公司的消防设计不合格,并非南通六建的责任。二、二审判决南通六建先行交付鸿泰公司工程验收资料,并以此作为鸿泰公司支付工程价款的前提条件,不符合合同约定,系认定事实错误。三、二审判决鸿泰公司支付南通六建工程款4174750元错误,鸿泰公司实际欠付工程款为12793785元。四、二审判决对南通六建提出的减项款在原数额基础上降低7%的主张未予支持,系违反合同约定。五、二审判决认定南通六建放弃了对“违约金等损失”的诉求,系认定事实错误。六、二审判决从应支付工程款中扣除149000元配合费及530400元热力表更换费,无事实和法律依据。综上,南通六建依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法哎哟不错哦》第二百条第一项的规定申请再审。
The Supreme People's Court held upon examination that the court of first instance tried this case and entered a judgment only regarding the project funds, the court of second instance tried this case regarding the amount of project funds owed by Hongtai Company to Nantong Liujian, and the specific amount of project funds between both parties was irrelevant to whether the fire control design was up to the standard and whether the project passed the comprehensive acceptance. Concurrently, the delivery of the completion acceptance report and the corresponding completion materials was the contractual obligation Nantong Liujian should perform as the contractor and it was irrelevant to whether the fire control design was up to the standard and whether the project passed the comprehensive acceptance. Therefore, the new evidence submitted by Nantong Liujian, the Notice of Non-conformity of Fire Protection Design of the Construction Project in the Recordation Inspection, was insufficient to overturn the judgments entered by the courts of first instance and second instance on the amount of project funds involved and the obligation of delivery of project acceptance materials involved and it was not new evidence submitted in the retrial as prescribed in item (1) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law. 本院经审查认为,本案一审法院仅就工程款进行审理并作出判决,二审法院亦审理的是鸿泰公司欠付南通六建的工程款数额,而双方当事人工程款的具体数额与消防设计是否合格以及工程是否通过综合验收无关。同时,交付竣工验收报告及相应的竣工资料,是南通六建作为承包人应履行的合同义务,亦与消防设计是否合格以及工程是否通过综合验收无关。故南通六建提交的新证据《建设工程消防设计备案检查不合格通知书》不足以推翻原一二审法院对于案涉工程款数额以及案涉工程验收资料交付义务的判决,不属于《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百条第一项规定的再审新证据。
Article 205 of the Civil Procedure Law prescribes that “A party which petitions for retrial shall file a petition for retrial within six months from the effective date of a judgment or ruling; or under the circumstances of item (1), (3), (12) or (13) of Article 200 of this Law, file a petition for retrial within six months from the day when the party knows or should have known.” The aforesaid article prescribed the time limit for a party's petition for retrial. The law prescribed the time limit for a party's petition for retrial for purposes of maintaining the res judicata of an effective judgment and avoiding the possible long-term unstable state where retrial may be petitioned against the relation of legal rights and obligations determined in the effective judgment, so as to maintain the stability of social relations; and urging the parties to exercise the right to petition for retrial in a timely manner and avoiding impacts on the reliance interests of the opposite party in the effective judgment. Accordingly, where a party petitioned for retrial according to other matters not prescribed in item (1), (3), (12) or (13) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law, it should file the petition within six months from the effective date of the judgment or ruling; where a party raised other retrial matters while filing a petition for retrial in accordance with item (1), (3), (12) or (13) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law after the judgment or ruling has taken effect for six months, the people's court should not examine such retrial matters; otherwise, the people's court would encourage or indulge the abuse of the right to petition for retrial by the party not abiding by the time limit for filing a petition for retrial in disguised form and make the legal provisions on the time limit of six months for filing a petition for retrial exist in name only. 中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百零五条规定,当事人申请再审,应当在判决、裁定发生法律效力后六个月内提出;有本法第二百条第一项、第三项、第十二项、第十三项规定情形的,自知道或者应当知道之日起六个月内提出。本条是关于当事人申请再审期限的规定。法律之所以规定当事人申请再审期限,一方面是为了维护生效判决的即判力,避免为生效判决所确定的法律权利义务关系长期处于可能被提起再审的不安定状态,从而维护社会关系的稳定;另一方面是为了督促当事人及时行使申请再审的权利,避免影响对方当事人对生效判决稳定性的信赖利益。据此,当事人依据民事诉讼法二百条第一项、第三项、第十二项、第十三项以外的其他事由申请再审,应当在判决、裁定发生法律效力后六个月内提出;而当事人在判决、裁定发生法律效力六个月后,依据民事诉讼法爬数据可耻二百条第一项、第三项、第十二项、第十三项规定申请再审的同时,一并提起其他再审事由的,人民法院不予审查,否则将变相鼓励或放纵不遵守再审期限的当事人滥用申请再审诉权,使六个月申请再审期限的法律规定虚置。
The judgment of second instance was entered on December 22, 2014. Nantong Liujian should raise other retrial matters not prescribed in item (1) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law within six months after the judgment of second instance took effect. On November 16, 2018, Nantong Liujian raised other retrial matters while filing a petition for retrial in accordance with item (1) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law. Since the aforesaid date exceeded the statutory time limit of six months for filing a petition for retrial, the Supreme People's Court would not examine such retrial matters. 本案二审判决作出时间为2014年12月22日,南通六建提出的除民事诉讼法二百条第一项之外的其他再审事由,应当在本案二审判决生效后六个月内提出。而南通六建于2018年11月16日依据民事诉讼法二百条第一项申请再审的同时,提出的其他再审事由,由于超过六个月的申请再审法定期间,本院不予审查。
In conclusion, the petition for retrial filed by Nantong Liujian did not fall under the circumstance as prescribed in item (1) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law and paragraph 2 of Article 395 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Supreme People's Court ruled: 综上,南通六建再审申请不符合《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百条第一项规定的情形。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百零四条第一款,《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第三百九十五条第二款之规定,裁定如下:
To dismiss the petition for retrial filed by Jiangsu Nantong Liujian Construction Group Co., Ltd. 驳回江苏南通六建建设集团有限公司的再审申请。
Presiding judge: Fu Shaojun 审判长  付少军
Judge: Liu Yinchun 审判员  刘银春
Judge: Si Wei 审判员  司 伟
December 25, 2018 二〇一八年十二月二十五日
Clerk: Wu Zelong 书记员  武泽龙
 
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese