The Judicial Realization Path Of The Priority Compensation Right Of The Actual Constructor

In the field of construction engineering,there is a long-term operation of the contractor’s advance construction,and it is also common for the employer to default on the project payment.When the contractor is insolvent or on the verge of bankruptcy,although the court supports the actual constructor to claim the project payment to the contractor,the lack of priority compensation guarantee is tantamount to a blank cheque,which cannot really guarantee the actual constructor’s project payment and directly affects the survival interests of migrant workers.Article 807 of the Civil Code stipulates the system of priority compensation for construction project price.In 2020,the Supreme People’s Court promulgated the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Construction Project Contracts(1).Article 35 also stipulates that the contractor who signs a construction project contract with the developer has the priority right to compensation.However,in judicial practice,whether the actual constructor can claim the priority of compensation from the contractor has always been controversial.The theoretical and practical circles have been arguing about whether the actual constructor belongs to the subject of priority compensation.The actual constructor is legitimate as the subject of priority compensation.At the theoretical level,the priority of compensation belongs to the legal security interest,and the actual constructor is not denied the priority of compensation because the contract is invalid.The priority of compensation comes from the appreciation of the project and the relationship between the project.Breaking through the principle of contract relativity gives the actual constructor the possibility of claiming priority for compensation through subrogation litigation.At the practical level,the actual constructor’s right to priority compensation can guarantee the labor remuneration of migrant workers,safeguard the survival interests of migrant workers,and achieve the policy purpose at the beginning of the establishment of the priority compensation system.At the level of legal system,the contractor stipulated in Article 807 of the Civil Code does not exclude the illegal contractor.At the same time,according to the elements of contract establishment stipulated in Article 490 of the Civil Code,the actual constructor and the employer form a de facto construction contract relationship,which belongs to the subject of the contract with the employer.In judicial practice,there are three modes for the actual constructor to claim the priority of compensation,namely,the actual constructor mode,the subrogation litigation mode,and the actual contractor mode.The actual constructor mode binds the creditor’s right of the project payment and the priority compensation right as a right.When the contractor is lazy in claiming the priority of compensation,the subrogation litigation mode gives priority to the actual constructor of subcontracting and illegal subcontracting.The actual contractor mode determines that there is a de facto contractual relationship between the contractor and the actual constructor with borrowed qualifications,and can directly claim rights from the contractor.In order to ensure the realization of the actual contractor’s priority compensation right,the judicial practice should determine the application of the actual contractor model and the subrogation litigation model according to’ whether the employer knows’.The actual constructor model confuses the creditor’s rights of the project funds and the priority right of compensation,which should be abandoned.When the employer knows the existence of the actual constructor and accepts the project delivered by the actual constructor,the actual constructor can directly claim the priority right of compensation to the employer according to the actual contractor model.When the employer does not know the existence of the actual construction person,the actual construction person claims the priority compensation right to the employer through the subrogation litigation mode.Based on the choice of the realization mode of the actual constructor’s priority right,it is necessary to define the related problems of the realization of the actual constructor’s priority right in judicial practice.First,it defines the connotation of’ the employer knows’ and clarifies the specific situation.The second is to expand the interpretation of the contractor.There is a big controversy about whether the contractor under Article 807 of the’ Civil Code’ includes the actual constructor.The theoretical controversy hinders the actual constructor’s claim in reality.The third is to clarify the constituent elements of the actual construction person’s priority compensation right.The actual construction person is different from the legal contractor,and there are certain differences in the elements of the priority compensation right.The fourth is to clarify the right sequence of the actual constructor and the nominal contractor to claim the priority of compensation.