[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a construction contract. Wang * served as the head of the ventilation and air conditioning construction team for the renovation project of a center in Beijing, and disagreed with A Construction Group Co., Ltd. (A Construction Group) regarding the settlement of the project. In January 2022, Wang * and Liu *, the project manager of A Construction Group, signed a settlement summary table, confirming a total settlement amount of 3,501,294.64 yuan, with 2 million yuan already paid and a remaining balance of 1,501,294.64 yuan. A Construction Group questioned Liu *'s identity and claimed that there was no legal relationship between them. Wang * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer's legal defense focused on whether the settlement agreement signed by Liu * was valid against A Construction Group, as well as the amount of the outstanding payment and the interest thereon. The applicable legal provisions were those set forth in the Civil Code. The court ruled that A Construction Group should pay the project payment of 1,501,294.64 yuan and interest calculated based on the LPR rate from February 1, 2022.

I. Review of the Case Facts

In practice, actual constructors often search for information such as "Is the settlement list signed by the project manager valid?" "Does the payment by the subcontractor count as a duty-related act?" and "Can actual constructors sue the employer?" In 2015, a center in Beijing awarded the decoration and renovation project to A Construction Group. A Construction Group assigned the ventilation, air conditioning, and heating sections to Wang * for construction, and Wang * completed the project in 2017. In January 2022, Wang * and Liu *, the project manager of A Construction Group, signed a "Settlement Summary Table", confirming a total settlement amount of 3,501,294.64 yuan, with 2 million yuan already paid and 1,501,294.64 yuan remaining unpaid. A Construction Group questioned the validity of the settlement list, claiming that it did not establish a legal relationship with Wang * and that Liu * was not its employee or agent. Under these circumstances, Wang * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer sued A Construction Group in court, demanding payment of the remaining project funds and compensation for interest losses.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is the settlement note signed by Project Manager Liu valid for A Construction Group?A Group claimed that Liu * was not its employee; the lawyer submitted social insurance payment information and the judgment of another case to prove that Liu * was its project manager and the signature was valid.
  • Focus 2: Whether the payments made by Cai * and Li * constitute official duties.The lawyer determined in another case that the two individuals were employees of A Group and that the payment was a duty-related act, thus solidifying the construction contract relationship between the parties.
  • Focus Three: The unpaid amount and interest, and the statute of limitations for litigation.The court determined that the outstanding debt amounted to 1,501,294.64 yuan according to the settlement agreement, and interest would be calculated from February 1, 2022 onwards. The court also ruled that the statute of limitations for litigation was interrupted due to the signing of the settlement agreement.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The original plaintiff (Wang * ) claimed that:Wang * claimed that he was the actual constructor of the project involved in the case, and that the project had been completed and accepted. Liu *, the project manager of A Construction Group, signed the settlement note confirming a debt of 1,501,294.64 yuan, and demanded the payment of the remaining project funds and interest calculated according to the LPR from February 1, 2022.

The defendant (A Construction Group) argued that:A Group claimed that Liu * was not its employee but a staff member of C Construction Company, and provided social security records to prove it; it insisted that there was no legal relationship with Wang *, and that Wang * had no basis for listing C Company as a defendant. Moreover, Liu * was unable to represent the Group to express its intention, so the Group refused to make the payment.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Li YonghuiThe lawyer insisted that Liu * was the project manager appointed by A Construction Group, and presented the payment information verification form for insured personnel, proving that A Group had paid social insurance for Liu * from 2016 to 2019; and submitted A Group's documents, which explicitly recognized Wang * as the head of the ventilation and air conditioning construction team and required him to report the settlement to the Ministry of Commerce. Moreover, according to the court's previous ruling in Tang *'s case, Liu * was identified as A Group's project manager, his signature was valid, and Cai * and Li * were identified as A Group's employees, and the payment was a duty-related act. Based on this, the lawyer argued that Wang * had a contractual relationship with A Group for the construction project, and the settlement was valid for A Group, so the lawsuit was not time-barred.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that Wang * was the actual constructor of part of the project involved in the case and had a contractual relationship with A Construction Group for the construction work. During the construction phase, A Construction Group paid social insurance for Liu * and Liu * participated in the project involved in the case; A Group acknowledged in another case that Cai * and Li * were its employees, and the payment of the project funds by the two to Wang * was a duty-related act; the project has been completed and accepted, and Wang *'s request for payment of the project funds is legitimate. The amount owed is 1501294.64 yuan according to the settlement statement signed by Liu *, and although A Group claimed that Liu * had resigned, it failed to prove that it had informed Wang * or reappointed a settlement personnel, so Liu *'s settlement act is effective against A Group. The statute of limitations was interrupted by the signing of the settlement statement, and Wang *'s lawsuit did not exceed the statute of limitations. Judgment: A Construction Group shall pay Wang * the project funds of 1501294.64 yuan and interest losses (based on 1501294.64 yuan, from February 1, 2022 to the date of actual payment, calculated at the benchmark interest rate for loans announced by the National Interbank Funding Center) within ten days from the effective date of this judgment. 法院认为，被告王某系涉案项目部分工程的实际施工人，与A建设集团存在施工合同关系。施工阶段A建设集团为原告刘某缴纳社保且刘某参与了涉案工程；A集团在另案中认可被告蔡某、李某为其员工，二人向王某支付工程款属职务行为；工程已竣工验收，王某要求支付工程款合法。欠付金额根据刘某签字的结算单为1501294.64元，尽管A集团称刘某已离职，但未证明已告知王某或重新指定结算人员，故刘某的结算行为对A集团有效。诉讼时效因结算单的签订而中断，王某起诉未超时效。判决：A建设集团于本判决生效之日起十日内向王某支付工程款1501294.64元及利息损失（以1501294.64元为基数，自2022年2月1日起至实际付清之日止，按全国银行间同业拆借中心公布的同期贷款市场报价利率标准计算）。

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

This case is represented by Attorney Li Yonghui of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101199611955812, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). The reconciliation and settlement documents signed by the project manager during the performance of his duties, combined with the payment of social insurance, company documents, and the determination of the effectiveness of another case, can bind the construction unit. The actual constructor should pay attention to collecting settlement invoices, social insurance and payment vouchers to prove the existence of the construction contract relationship and the amount of the arrears, and pay attention to the interruption of the statute of limitations for litigation.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Construction Project-Related Cases

  1. Q: Does the settlement statement signed by the project manager have legal effect on the company?
    A:The project manager signed the documents during his/her tenure. Combined with the company's payment of social insurance for him/her, the company's recognition of his/her identity in its documents, and the judgment of his/her identity in another case, the settlement action is valid for the company.
  2. Q: Does it count as an official duty for a subcontracted worker to make payments on behalf of the company?
    A:If the company has recognized the person as its employee in another case, the payment of the project funds to the actual constructor is generally regarded as a duty-related act, which can confirm the existence of a construction contract relationship between the two parties.
  3. Q: Can the actual constructor directly sue the general contractor?
    A:If the actual constructor has a construction contract with the general contractor and the project has been accepted, he/she can claim the payment of the project funds. It is necessary to pay attention to collecting the settlement invoices and the evidence of performance of the contract.
  4. Q: How is the statute of limitations for disputes over project payments calculated?
    A:The claim of rights by the right holder, the consent of the obligee to perform the obligation, and the signing of the settlement agreement may lead to the interruption of the statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations will be recalculated from the time of interruption.
  5. Q: Can the company refuse to pay just by saying that "the signatory is not an employee"?
    A:No. The signature can be proven to represent the company through social insurance records, company documents, and effective judgments. The company cannot use the excuse of "not being an employee" to oppose bona fide actual constructors.