Is there any payment for 400,000 yuan in payment?Prosecutors verify new evidence to help private enterprises get rid of their troubles

"After the debt burden of more than 400,000 yuan was removed, the enterprise temporarily broke away from the predicament and believed that it would be better in the future." Recently, the prosecutor of the prosecutor of Luyang District Procuratorate in Hefei City, Anhui Province called to visit a construction engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " At the time of engineering company), the person in charge of the company said.

On November 24, 2020, the Luyang District Procuratorate accepted a case of procuratorial supervision and supervision of not accepting civil effectiveness referees. It turned out that in October 2007, the engineering company signed an electrical trading contract worth more than 400,000 yuan with an electrical operating company (hereinafter referred to as the "Electrical Appliance Management Company"). Construction Investment Corporation ") provides guarantee. The contract stipulates that CCP Corporation pays the power of the engineering company in accordance with the engineering company's payment attorney, and pays the payment to the electrical appliance operation company within the scope of the engineering company of the arrears engineering company. After that, the electrical operation company provided an electrical appliances worth more than 400,000 yuan in accordance with the contract.

On April 1, 2019, the electrical operating company filed a lawsuit with the court on the grounds that the engineering company did not pay the payment. Due to the failure to provide relevant evidence to pay the payment in time, the court judged that the first instance of the court to pay more than 400,000 yuan and interest to the electrical operating company within the prescribed period. Responsibilities to assume the joint and bring.

Within the legal appeal period, neither engineering company nor Construction Investment Corporation appealed. But later, during the finance period of the company, the engineering company discovered the new evidence of payment of payment and applied to the court for retrial, but was rejected. As a result, the engineering company applied for supervision to the procuratorate.

"The key to the case is whether the payment is paid, how to pay, and how much." After fully understanding the case, the prosecutor handling the case soon found the breakthrough of the case, that is, the project payment entrusted letter and bank provided by the engineering company and the bank Entry and other evidence materials.

After careful verification by the prosecutor of the case, the new evidence showed that the engineering company had entrusted the CCP company to pay the payment of the company's payment of 100,000 yuan each on January 23 and June 4, 2008. At the same time, the engineering company also found that when inquiring the company's bank account, it also found that on October 21, 2009, it paid 127,500 yuan to the electrical operating company through check transfer. "The above evidence is only a unilateral evidence provided by the application to the supervisor, and a complete evidence chain must be formed in order to clarify the straightness of the matter." In order to verify the above -mentioned three payment flow, the prosecutor handling the case traveled 6 times to the construction investment company and the construction investment company and the construction investment company and the construction investment company and Many banks investigated in -depth investigation.

After investigation, more than 320,000 yuan involved in the three certificates provided by the engineering company was transferred to the account of electrical operating companies. At the same time, the prosecutor also had a new discovery: On February 2, 2008, the CCP company was commissioned by the engineering company and paid a payment of more than 70,000 yuan to the electrical appliance business company. Based on this, the engineering company has accumulated a total of nearly 400,000 yuan to pay a total of nearly 400,000 yuan through check transfer and entrusted construction investment company to pay, and only owe the company's payment of 6731.39 yuan.

It turned out that when the establishment of the investment company was entrusted to pay the payment, he did not make detailed remarks clearly. Which company was paid for the payment, and the electrical operating company Zhang Guanli Dai was mistakenly believed that the engineering company did not pay the payment, which caused this lawsuit.

In view of the new evidence in the case, there is a new evidence that is enough to overthrow the original judgment, and the Procuratorate of the Luyang District Procuratorate discussed that according to the provisions of relevant laws and judicial interpretations, engineering companies and construction companies did not submit relevant payment evidence in the original trial. Provide evidence that the above evidence is related to the basic facts of the case, and the court should adopt it. On June 23 this year, the Luyang District Procuratorate issued a retrial procuratorial proposal to the court in accordance with the law and was adopted by the court.

On June 30, the court opened a public trial to revoke the original judgment, and made the payment of 6731.39 yuan and interest to the electrical operating company within ten days from the date of effectiveness of the engineering company. A new judgment of liability for settlement.

(Source: Procuratorate Author: Ma Yundong)

- END -