[Case Summary]This case is a second-instance dispute over a subcontract for a construction project. In the first instance, the court fully supported the plaintiff B Company's (the contractor) claim for more than 7.48 million yuan in project payments. The defendant A Company appealed, alleging that the authenticity of the signing of the acceptance certificate was in doubt, that the procedures of the first instance were illegal, and that the burden of the appraisal fees was incorrectly allocated. Beijing Henglu Law FirmLi YonghuiOn behalf of the appellee, Company B, the defendant argued that the acceptance certificate is authentic, the project has been accepted and put into use, and the payment conditions have been met. The core disputes are: the validity of the acceptance certificate, the payment conditions, and whether the criminal report will prevent the trial. The second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment, and Company A shall bear the second-instance acceptance fee of 64,223 yuan. Applicable laws: the Civil Procedure Law and other relevant provisions.

I. Review of the Case Facts

"What should I do if the signature on the project acceptance certificate is questioned?" and "If the other party says they've reported the case to the police, does the court have to wait for the criminal trial results?" are common concerns in the second-instance review of engineering projects. From March 2019 to July 2021, A Company and B Company successively signed three contracts. B Company subcontracted the ventilation and air conditioning system related projects of XXXX Times Shopping Plaza to A Company. A Company carried out the construction according to the contract and completed all the construction in May 2022. On May 6, the two parties signed the project acceptance certificate confirming that the project had been accepted and put into use; on May 8, B Company's staff signed and confirmed the settlement of the project quantity. According to the calculation, the total price of the labor subcontract was over 4.53 million yuan, and the total price of the supplementary agreement and the two agreements was over 11.02 million yuan, with a total project price of over 15.56 million yuan. As of before the lawsuit, B Company had only paid over 7.76 million yuan and still owed over 7.79 million yuan. A Company is currently suing B Company for breach of contract and seeking to recover the remaining debt and compensation for economic losses.Li YonghuiWith assistance, a lawsuit was filed against the People's Court of Yangzhong City, Jiangsu Province. Later, the claim was changed to the payment of 7,488,999.88 yuan in project funds and interest, and the defendant was required to bear the litigation fees, preservation fees, and appraisal fees totaling 118,195 yuan.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The authenticity of the signature on the project acceptance form and whether the project has been completed.Company A claimed that the first-instance court failed to verify the authenticity of the signatures of "Xing ** " and "Song ** " before accepting the acceptance certificate and the cost appraisal report, and argued that the project had not been completed.
  • Focus 2: Whether the payment conditions have been met.Company A claimed that it would pay within 30 days after receiving the owner's payment according to the contract, but it failed to obtain the payment from the owner, so the condition was not fulfilled.
  • Focus 3: The burden of criminal reporting and appraisal fees.Company A claimed that the signatory was suspected of committing a crime and had reported the case to the police, and that the first-instance court's decision-making process was illegal; the appraisal fee should be borne by the party making the claim.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The party concerned (the appellee B Company) claimed that:The project involved in the case has been inspected and put into use, and the settlement amount has been confirmed by judicial appraisal. Company A should pay the outstanding project funds. The facts of the first-instance judgment are clear, and the applicable laws are correct.

The appellant (Company A) claimed that:There are errors in fact determination (the authenticity of the signature on the acceptance form has not been verified, and the project has not been completed); serious procedural violations (the signatory is suspected of committing a crime and has been reported to the police, and the first-instance court made a judgment without waiting for the outcome of the criminal case); and errors in the burden of appraisal fees, which should be borne by the party making the claim.

Hengluo Lawyer's Representation Opinion:Li YonghuiThe lawyer representing Company B argued that: regarding the acceptance certificate, Company A never raised objections to the authenticity of the signature in the first instance, and its own submitted "Criminal Complaint Letter" explicitly admitted that it was signed by Xing ** and Song ** themselves, so the acceptance certificate is genuine and valid; regarding the completion of the project, the acceptance certificate states "acceptance is qualified", and Company A itself acknowledges that the project has been used by the small owners, which is legally regarded as completion and acceptance; regarding the payment conditions, the contract's "payment after the owner pays" is an internal risk arrangement, which cannot oppose Company B's direct payment request. Company A's long-term failure to claim rights from the owner cannot be used to delay payment; regarding the appraisal fee, since Company A does not recognize the quantity of the project, the conclusion is favorable to Company B, and the first-instance court should make the losing party bear the reasonable and legal expenses; regarding the criminal case, Company A only provided the "case acceptance receipt" but failed to provide the filing certificate, which cannot prevent the civil case from being tried.

IV. Outcome of the case

The second-instance court found that A Company's "Criminal Complaint" had explicitly admitted that the "Project Acceptance Certificate" was signed by Xing ** and Song **, and did not raise any objections to the authenticity of the signatures or the time of their formation. Therefore, there was no need to grant the request for appraisal. Regarding the payment conditions, Xing ** and Song ** signed the acceptance certificate, which proved that the project had been accepted. Moreover, it could be seen from the statement that "the small owners carried out unauthorized renovations" that the project had been partially used, and the payment conditions had been met. A Company claimed that "it would pay after receiving the payment from the owners", but the project had long been accepted, and A Company had not effectively claimed the remaining project funds to date, which was difficult to support. Regarding the criminal report, the existing evidence could not prove that the signatories were suspected of committing crimes and had been investigated. The claim that the first-instance proceedings were illegal lacked basis. Regarding the appraisal fees, the first-instance court's determination that A Company should bear the fees was not inappropriate based on the circumstances of the case. Finally, the second-instance court ruled: To dismiss the appeal and maintain the original judgment; the second-instance case acceptance fee of 64,223 yuan shall be borne by A Company. This judgment is final and binding.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmLi YonghuiThe attorney. In this case, from fully supporting the claim in the first instance to accurately defending and dismissing the appeal in the second instance, the lawyer focused on the core issues and used solid evidence and rigorous legal logic to help Company B recover nearly 7.5 million yuan in project arrears. Engineering companies should pay attention to the standard signing and storage of acceptance certificates and settlement certificates; if the other party delays civil litigation by reporting a criminal case, it is necessary to verify whether the case has really been registered, and the receipt of the case is not enough to preclude civil litigation.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Second-Instance Cases in Engineering Lawsuits

  1. Q: What should I do if the other party questions the signature on the project acceptance form?
    A:It can be determined by combining the other party's self-admission (such as the complaint letter and chat records) and the actual facts of use. If the signatory admits it, there is no need for further authentication.
  2. Q: If the other party says they've reported the case to the police, does the court have to wait for the criminal trial's outcome before taking action?
    A:Only if the case has not been registered and only a receipt of acceptance of the case has been issued, it is not enough to prevent the civil trial from proceeding; it is only when a registration certificate is issued that the proceedings may be affected.
  3. Q: According to the contract, can the subcontractor refuse to pay if they haven't received the payment from the owner yet?
    A:This agreement is mostly an internal risk arrangement and cannot counteract the actual constructor's right to request direct payment, especially when the general contractor is negligent in claiming payment from the owner.
  4. Q: Can we still say that the project hasn't been completed even though it has already been put into use?
    A:The delivery of a project is usually regarded as passing the completion acceptance, and the employer's defense against payment is often unsuccessful in this case.
  5. Q: Is there a high chance that the verdict will be overturned on appeal?
    A:If the facts and evidence in the first-instance judgment are clear and solid, the second-instance court will generally uphold the original judgment. An appeal requires new facts, evidence, or errors in the application of the law.