1. 首页
  2. 法律委托案例
  3. 郑方祥等与郑祖应劳务合同纠纷上诉案

郑方祥等与郑祖应劳务合同纠纷上诉案

郑方祥等与郑祖应劳务合同纠纷上诉案重庆市第四中级人民法院民事判决书(2012)渝四中法民终字第00601号上诉人(原审被告):郑方祥。委托代理人:陈清涛,重庆光界律师事务所律师。上诉人(原审被告):唐华英。委托代理人:陈清涛,重庆光界律师事务所律师。被上诉人(原审原告):郑祖应。原审被告:重庆振兴实业(集团)有限公司。法定代表人:陈朝文。委托代理人:刘蓬。上诉人郑方祥、唐华英与被上诉人郑祖应、原审被告重庆振兴实业(集团)有限公司(以下简称振兴公司)劳务合同纠纷一案,重庆市黔江区人民法院于2012年3月9日作出(2011)黔法民初字第2954号民事判决,郑方祥、唐华英不服该判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭进行了审理。本案现已审理终结。一审法院查明:2004年,振兴...

郑方祥等与郑祖应劳务合同纠纷上诉案

重庆市第四中级人民法院

民事判决书

(2012)渝四中法民终字第00601号

上诉人(原审被告):郑方祥。

委托代理人:陈清涛,重庆光界律师事务所律师。

上诉人(原审被告):唐华英。

委托代理人:陈清涛,重庆光界律师事务所律师。

被上诉人(原审原告):郑祖应。

原审被告:重庆振兴实业 (集团)有限公司。

法定代表人:陈朝文。

委托代理人:刘蓬。

上诉人郑方祥、唐华英与被上诉人郑祖应、原审被告重庆振兴实业(集团)有限公司(以下简称振兴公司)劳务合同纠纷一案,重庆市黔江区人民法院于2012年3月9日作出(2011)黔法民初字第2954号民事判决,郑方祥、唐华英不服该判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭进行了审理。本案现已审理终结。

一审法院查明:2004年,振兴公司向中铁十一局承包了重庆酉阳渤海至桂塘公路C4标段的凉亭坳隧道工程,同年11月,郑方祥与渤桂路项目部签订工程劳务合同,郑方祥系渤桂路项目部C4标隧道工程队实际施工人,在施工期间雇请刘育怀作现场管理,刘育怀又雇请李业昌为隧道工程队出纳,负责支付工程相关款项,刘育怀、李业昌的工资均由郑方祥发放,后郑方祥、刘育怀与原告郑祖应达成协议,郑祖应负责隧道砌班施工,双方虽未在《隧道工程施工合同》上签字,但均认可是双方实际履行的合同,郑祖应在完成工程量后,现场管理刘育怀及经办人刘秀河对郑祖应完成工程量进行结算,郑祖应实际完成工程量造价为790300元,刘育怀及经办人刘秀河均在结算清单上签字。2007年10月9日,隧道工程队出纳李业昌在扣除郑祖应、王宏伟已领劳务工资330444元后,给郑祖应出具欠条一张今欠到酉阳渤桂二级公路凉亭坳隧道工程量清单二次村砌班工人工资459856元。另查明,郑方祥与唐华英系夫妻关系。

郑祖应起诉请求判令振兴公司、郑方祥、唐华英连带清偿劳务费459856元。振兴公司辩称:没有与郑祖应形成承包关系,对拖欠郑祖应的劳务费不应承担责任。郑方祥、唐华英辩称:郑祖应所做工程不实,刘育怀出具的工程量清单、李业昌出具的459856元欠条不属职务行为,是否欠工程款要通过鉴定评估才能确定,故不同意支付。

一审法院认为,该案争执的焦点:一、刘育怀给郑祖应出具的结算清单,李业昌给郑祖应出具的欠条的性质及产生的法律后果由谁承担的问题。从(2011)渝四中法民终字第00472号判决书确认事实来看,刘育怀作为郑方祥雇请人员,在隧道工程的管理过程中,对郑祖应已完成工程量的结算行为,李业昌给郑祖应出具欠条的行为,均系受雇于郑方祥履行职务的行为,其产生的法律后果均由郑方祥承担责任。二、郑祖应和王建伟谁是实际承包人?从郑方祥雇请人员刘育怀的证实,以及郑祖应持有的结算单、李业昌给郑祖应出具的欠条原件来看,应当确认郑祖应才是劳务的实际承包人。三、对于郑方祥、唐华英辩称,郑祖应完成工程量不实,是刘育怀、李业昌与郑祖应恶意串通,损害郑方祥的利益,目前没有证据证明。四、郑方祥、唐华英要求重新鉴定的请求,郑方祥只提供图纸及按文变更的工程量,无郑祖应签字认可的实际完成工程量,即便结果有争议,其差额也是因管理不当所致,系另一法律关系,故本案中勿需重新鉴定。五、对于郑祖应主张利息的请求,在郑祖应与刘育怀结算,并由李业昌出具欠条后,郑方祥应及时支付而不支付,从欠款的次日起应当按人民银行同期同类贷款利率承担资金利息。根据合同相对性原理,振兴公司对上述债务,不承担连带责任。唐华英与郑方祥是夫妻关系,项目的盈亏与其有利害关系,应当承担连带责任。据此,《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百零六条、第一百零八条,《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第六十四条之规定,判决:一、郑方祥、唐华英在判决生效后十日内连带清偿郑祖应劳务工资459856元,并从2007年10月11日起按中国人民银行同期同类贷款利率承担资金利息;二、驳回郑祖应的其他诉讼请求。案件受理费4100元,由郑方祥、唐华英承担。

郑方祥、唐华英不服该判决,向本院提起上诉,请求撤销原判,依法改判驳回被上诉人诉讼请求。事实及理由:

1.一审认定李业昌对被上诉人出具欠条的行为系职务行为错误,郑方祥并未授权其对外出具欠条,李业昌与刘育怀的行为属于个人行为。2.应进行工程造价鉴定,判断李业昌出具欠条的真实性,确定上诉人应付款项。3.唐华英并非任何合同一方的主体,仅因与郑方祥是夫妻关系就作被告并承担合同责任违背法律规定。4.郑方祥已起诉要求刘育怀、李业昌返还工程款,正在审理中,其结果对本案事实认定有利害关系,请求中止本案二审审理。

被上诉人郑祖应答辩称:原判认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,请求依法维持。

原审被告振兴公司答辩称:一审判决认定振兴公司不承担责任正确,上诉人上诉请求与振兴公司无关。

本院二审查明的事实与一审查明的事实相同。

本院认为,刘育怀作为郑方祥雇请人员,在隧道工程的管理过程中,对郑祖应已完成工程量进行结算,之后由出纳李业昌给郑祖应出具欠条,刘育怀、李业昌均系受雇于郑方祥履行职务的行为,其产生的法律后果均由郑方祥承担责任。对于郑方祥辩称郑祖应完成工程量不实,要求进行工程造价鉴定,没有相关证据证明,本院不予支持。郑方祥起诉刘育怀、李业昌返还工程款纠纷,并不影响本案的审理,郑方祥要求中止本案审理,本院不予支持。唐华英与郑方祥是夫妻关系,应当承担连带责任。综上所述,上诉人的上诉理由不能成立,原审判决认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,应予维持。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第一款第(一)项的规定,判决如下:

驳回上诉,维持原判。

二审案件受理费4100元,由郑方祥、唐华英负担。

本判决为终审判决。

审判长黄飞

代理审判员黄明

代理审判员陈明生

二○一二年七月十七日

书记员王宏

Zheng Fangxiang with record of appeal of issue of Zheng Zuying work contract

The 4th intermediate people of Chongqing city court

Civil judgment

(2012) change 4 Sino-French civilian eventually word the 00601st

Appellant () of first trial the accused: Zheng Fangxiang.

Attorney: Chen Qingtao, solicitor of office of attorney of Chongqing smooth group.

Appellant () of first trial the accused: Tang Huaying.

Attorney: Chen Qingtao, solicitor of office of attorney of Chongqing smooth group.

Appellee () of first trial accuser: Zheng Zuying.

First trial the accused: Chongqing is revitalized industrial (group) limited company.

Legal representative: Chen Chaowen.

Attorney: Liu Peng.

Chongqing of the accused of appellant Zheng Fang Xiang, Tang Huaying and appellee Zheng Zuying, first trial is revitalized industrial (group) limited company (the following abbreviation revitalizes a company) work contract dispute one case, court of people of area of river of Chongqing city Guizhou was made on March 9, 2012 (2011) Guizhou law civilian first word the 2954th civil judgment, zheng Fangxiang, Tang Huaying refuses to obey this court decision, mention to this academy appeal. This academy comprised collegiate bench to undertake cognizance lawfully. This case already was tried now terminative.

Court of first instance finds out: 2004, revitalize a company to in iron 11 bureaus contracted You Yang Bohai Sea reachs Chongqing mark of C4 of Gui Tang highway paragraph project of arbor col tunnel, of the same age November, zheng Fangxiang and ministry of project of Bo laurel road sign engineering work contract, construction team of channel of mark of C4 of ministry of project of road of laurel of Zheng Fangxiang department Bo uses a worker actually, during construction hire Liu Yo conceives spot management, liu Yohuai hire Li Yechang is cashier of channel construction team, be in charge of paying a project relevant money, the salary of Liu Yohuai, Li Yechang all extends by Zheng Fangxiang, yo of Zheng Fangxiang, Liu is conceived after with accuser Zhengzu should come to an agreement, zheng Zuying is in charge of construction of class of channel build by laying bricks or stones, although both sides was not in " contract of tunnel project construction " on sign, but the contract that but both sides is fulfilled actually,all identifies, after Zheng Zuying is finishing a project to measure, bosom of Yo of spot management Liu and river of agency person Liuxiu finish project amount to have close an account to Zheng Zuying, zheng Zuying finishs a project actually to measure cost to be 790300 yuan, liu Yohuai and agency person Liu Xiuhe all are on settle accounts detailed list sign. On October 9, 2007, li Yechang of cashier of channel construction team is in deduct Zheng Zuying, Wang Hongwei to already got service pay 330444 yuan hind, issue a bill signed in acknowledgement of debt to Zheng Zuying one piece owes laurel of You Yang Bo today project of tunnel of col of B road arbor measures detailed list 2 times pay of worker of class of village build by laying bricks or stones 459856 yuan. Additional find out, zheng Fangxiang and Tang Huaying fasten husband and wife to concern.

Zheng Zu Yingqi accuses the request sentences Ling Zhenxing company, Zheng Fangxiang, Tang Huaying service of implicative pay off expends 459856 yuan. Revitalize company argue to say: Did not form with Zheng Zuying contract relation, the service fee that answers to defaulting Zhengzu should not assume responsibility. Argue weighs Zheng Fangxiang, Tang Huaying: Cheng of charge for the making of sth. of Zheng Zuying place is disloyal, 459856 yuan of IOUs that Liu Yo conceives issued project to measure detailed list, Li Yechang to issue do not belong to functionary action, whether to owe project money to want to evaluate ability to decide through appraisal, reason does not agree to pay.

Court of first instance thinks, the focus of this case conflict: One, the settle accounts detailed account that Liu Yohuai gives Zheng Zuying to issue, the problem that the legal consequence of the quality that Li Yechang gives Zheng Zuying issued bill signed in acknowledgement of debt and generation assumes by who. From (2011) change 4 Sino-French civilian eventually the 00472nd judgment confirms the word in light of the fact, liu Yohuai regards Zheng Fangxiang as hire personnel, in the administrative process of tunnel project, already completed the settle accounts action that the project measures to Zheng Zuying, li Yechang gives Zheng Zuying to issue the action of the IOU, all fasten the behavior that is hired by Zheng Fangxiang to perform a job, the legal consequence that its produce all assumes responsibility by Zheng Fangxiang. 2, Zheng Zuying and Wang Jianwei who is actual contractor? From Zheng Fangxiang Yo of hire personnel Liu conceives confirm, and in light of the IOU original that the settle accounts sheet of Zheng Zuying hold, Li Yechang gives Zheng Zuying to issue, ought to affirm Zheng Zu Yingcai is the actual contractor of the service. 3, to Zheng Fangxiang, Tang Huaying argue says, amount of the Zheng Zuying project that finish is disloyal, it is Liu Yohuai, Li Yechang and Zheng Zuying ill will is colluded with, harm Zheng Fangxiang's interest, do not have evidential proof at present. 4, Zheng Fangxiang, Tang Huaying asks the request of new appraisal, zheng Fangxiang provides blueprint and the project amount that press civil change only, sign without Zheng Zuying those who approbate is actual amount of the project that finish, even if result is open to question, because of,its balance also is misgovern be caused by, fasten another legislation impact, reason does not require new appraisal in this case. 5, the request that holds interest to Zheng Zuying, settle accounts is conceived in Zheng Zuying and Liu Yo, after issueing a bill signed in acknowledgement of debt by Li Yechang, zheng Fangxiang should pay in time and do not pay, ought to press people bank the corresponding period since the morrow of debt congener loan interest rate bears capital interest. According to contract relativity principle, revitalize a company to be opposite afore-mentioned debt, do not assume joint liability. Tang Huaying and Zheng Fang Xiang are spouse concern, the profit and loss of the project has interests with its, ought to assume joint liability. Accordingly, " general rule of civil code of People's Republic of China " the 106th, the 108th, " code of civil law of People's Republic of China " the 64th regulation, court decision: One, Zheng Fangxiang, Tang Huaying is in after adjudicative become effective inside 10 days salary of service of Zheng Zuying of implicative pay off 459856 yuan, press the corresponding period of Chinese people bank since October 11, 2007 congener loan interest rate assumes capital accrual; 2, the other suit request that rejects Zheng Zuying. The case accepts fee 4100 yuan, assume by Zheng Fangxiang, Tang Huaying.

Zheng Fangxiang, Tang Huaying refuses to obey this court decision, mention to this academy appeal, request cancel original judgement, lawfully change the original sentence rejects appellee lawsuit request. The fact reachs ground:

1. first instance maintains Li Yechang to issue the behavior of the IOU to fasten functionary action mistake to appellee, zheng Fangxiang not its issue accredit external IOU, li Yechang and Liu Yohuai's behavior attribute individual action. 2. Should have project cost identification, judge Li Yechang to issue the authenticity of the IOU, affirmatory appellant handles money. 3. Tang Huaying is not the main body of any contract one party, only because of with Zheng Fangxiang it is husband and wife the relation makes the accused and assume contract liability be bad law to set. 4. Zheng Fangxiang already sued bosom of requirement Liu Yo, Li Yechang to return return project money, in be being tried, its are maintained to this case fact as a result have interests, request break down 2 careful hear this case.

Appellee Zhengzu respondent argue says: Original judgement cognizance fact is clear, applicable law is correct, request to be maintained lawfully.

First trial the accused revitalizes a company to rejoin say: One adjudgement is maintained definitely revitalize a company not to assume responsibility correct, appellant appeal request and revitalize a company to have nothing to do.

The fact that the fact that 2 careful find out this academy and first instance find out is same.

This academy thinks, liu Yohuai regards Zheng Fangxiang as hire personnel, in the administrative process of tunnel project, already finished project amount to have close an account to Zheng Zuying, the bill signed in acknowledgement of debt is issued to Zheng Zuying by cashier Li Yechang later, liu Yohuai, Li Yechang all fastens the behavior that is hired by Zheng Fangxiang to perform a job, the legal consequence that its produce all assumes responsibility by Zheng Fangxiang. To Zheng Fangxiang argue says Zheng Zuying completes a project the quantity is disloyal, the requirement has project cost identification, without relevant proof proof, this academy does not grant to support. Zheng Fangxiang sues Liu Yohuai, Li Yechang to return return project money issue, do not affect the cognizance of this case, zheng Fangxiang asks this case tries break down, this academy does not grant to support. Tang Huaying and Zheng Fang Xiang are spouse concern, ought to assume joint liability. The place on put together is narrated, a:appellant reason of appellant cannot hold water, first trial adjudicates cognizance fact is clear, applicable law is correct, should grant to maintain. According to " code of civil law of People's Republic of China " the 153rd the first (one) regulation, the court decision is as follows:

Reject appeal, maintain original judgement.

2 careful case accepts fee 4100 yuan, by burden of Zheng Fangxiang, Tang Huaying.

This court decision is final judgment to adjudicate.

Presiding judge Huang Fei

Acting judge Huang Ming

Acting judge Chenming is unripe

Two years on July 17

Clerk Wang Hong

本文来自投稿,不代表君士君法律咨询网立场,如若转载,请注明出处:http://www.junshijun.com/wts/26880.html