I looked at judgement Silk road lost they had to pay over 3 million yuan
The civil ruling on the application for retrial of the contract dispute between Gansu Silk Road Museum Co., Ltd. and Baoji Yonggu Concrete Co., Ltd.
Release Date: 2021-05-28
Related companies:
Baoji Yonggu Concrete Co., Ltd. Gansu Silk Road Museum Co., Ltd.
Document Header
Intermediate People's Court of Baoji City, Shaanxi Province
civil amibitration
(2021) Shaan 03 Minshen No. 26
Applicant for the retrial (defendant in the original trial): Gansu Silk Road Museum Co. , Ltd. , domiciled in Suzhou District, Jiuquan City, Gansu Province, with unified social credit code XXXXXXXXXXXXXX336U.
Legal representative: MeiPingWu, chairman of the board.
Attorney: Zhang Hongbo, Lian Liwei, (trainee lawyer), lawyer of Shaanxi Xingzhong Law Firm.
Respondent (plaintiff in the original trial): Baoji Yonggu Concrete Co. , Ltd. , domiciled in Weibin District, Baoji City, Shaanxi Province, with unified social credit code XXXXXXXXXXXXXX1786.
Legal representative: Shen Shanshan, chairman of the board.
Entrusted litigation agent: Ye Jianxin, general manager of the company.
Litigation record
The retrial applicant Gansu Silk Road Museum Co., Ltd. dissatisfied with the Civil Judgment (2020) Shaan 0302 Minchu No. 907 of the People’s Court of Weibin District, Baoji City, Shaanxi Province in a contract dispute with the respondent Baoji Yonggu Concrete Co., Ltd. This court applies for retrial. This court formed a collegiate panel in accordance with the law to conduct a review, and the review has now been completed.
evidence
Gansu Silk Road Museum Co., Ltd. applied for retrial and stated: 1. The facts found in the original trial were wrong. The original court found that the "Concrete Mixing Plant Construction and Operation Contract", "Supplementary Agreement", "Concrete Production Line Construction Intent", and "Agreement" were valid contract evidence insufficient, and the respondent could not verify that the "management fee" actually occurred; 2. The original trial Improper procedures. The applicant was not summoned in accordance with the law, and he was absent from the trial. In summary, the original judgment found that the facts were unclear and the procedures were improper. Request to revoke the original judgment and retrial according to law.
This hospital believes
Upon review, this court found that the original court found that the Contract for Construction and Operation of Concrete Mixing Plant and the Supplementary Agreement signed by the respondent and the applicant did not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations and were legal and effective. Both parties should perform as agreed in the contract. Respective obligations. This is correct. Regarding the validity of the "Concrete Production Line Construction Intent" and "Agreement" signed by the respondent and the applicant’s project headquarters. In this case, although the above two contracts signed by the respondent and the applicant’s project headquarters have not been confirmed or ratified by the applicant, the applicant has issued the "Letter of Appointment" and the "Power of Attorney", and after the two parties have signed the letter of intent, The respondent and the claimant signed the Contract for Construction and Operation of Concrete Mixing Station. The respondent has sufficient reasons and evidence to prove that its transaction partner is the applicant. In summary, the above two contracts are the true expressions of the parties’ true intentions and do not violate the mandatory provisions of the law. They are valid contracts. The applicant shall bear the responsibility for the above two contracts signed by the project department. The applicant’s claim that the above-mentioned "agreement" is valid, but the evidence submitted by him cannot prove his claim, nor can it overturn the facts ascertained by the original judgment. Regarding procedural issues, the original court of trial mailed the litigation documents to the applicant company in compliance with the law. In addition, the applicant's application for judicial appraisal during the retrial period does not comply with the law, and this court will not allow it. In summary, the facts found in the original judgment are clear, the applicable laws are correct, and the procedures are appropriate. The applicant's application for retrial does not comply with the provisions of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and its application for retrial has insufficient grounds and should be rejected.
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 204 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" and the provisions of Article 395 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application", the ruling is as follows:
Verdict
The retrial application of Gansu Silk Road Museum Co., Ltd. was rejected .
End of the document
Presiding Judge Zhao Xian
Judge Liu Hong
Judge Marin
April 2, 2012
Assistant Judge Jing Tao
Clerk Ning Ning
1
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
