论文部分内容阅读
本案是一起涉及工程款的借款合同纠纷案。被告承建上海南汇区某厂房装机工程和主厂房土建工程,在施工过程中因总承包方境外某公司的原因致使工程停滞。为使工程完成,2000年3月24日与境外某公司有关联关系的原告与被告签订了一份借款协议。协议约定:被告继续完成工程,原告借款人民币1,374,283元,还款方式为在工程结算款中“多退少补”。工程完成后,原告诉至法院,主张原、被告之间签订的是借款协议书,到期后被告应返还借款,要求被告返还借款。在此案审理过程中,上海建纬律师事务所朱树英律师、魏康寿律师接受被告委托,在洞悉案件原委、掌握相关证据的基础上,据理力争,通过一审和二审程序最终确认本案的借款原本属于应支付的工程欠款,原告的要求确认系争价款为借款的诉讼请求为法院最终驳回,被告获得胜诉。
This case is a loan contract dispute involving construction funds. The defendant contracted to build a plant in Nanhui District of Shanghai and the civil works of the main plant. During the construction process, the project was stalled due to a company outside the general contractor. For the completion of the project, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a loan agreement with the related company of a foreign company on March 24, 2000. Agreement: The defendant continued to complete the project, the plaintiff borrowed 1,374,283 yuan, the repayment method for the settlement of the project “Duotuishaobu”. After the completion of the project, the plaintiff told the court that the plaintiff and the defendant signed a loan agreement. After the expiration, the defendant should return the loan and require the defendant to return the loan. In the trial of the case, Zhu Shuying and Wei Kangshou, lawyers of Shanghai Jianwei Law Firm, accepted the defendant’s entrustment. Based on the investigation of the case and the relevant evidence, it was argued that the borrowing which was finally confirmed by the first instance and second instance procedures originally belonged to Should pay the project arrears, the plaintiff’s request to confirm the price of litigation as the loan claims for the court finally rejected, the defendant won.