【作者】 陈娟；

【导师】 屈茂辉；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 法律， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 无资质或是超越自有资质借用他人资质签订的建筑施工合同，违反了《建筑法》关于施工资质的强制性规定，属于无效合同，但最高院解释规定建筑施工合同无效但工程验收合格的，可比照合同约定支付工程价款，实质是无效合同按照有效处理，规避《建筑法》关于施工资质的立法宗旨，导致建筑市场混乱，法律适用中缺乏统一性。冯敦景诉昆仑酒店建设工程施工合同纠纷案，一、二审法院均认定合同无效但判决迥异，一审认定合同无效强调实际施工方无资质但回避了是因为挂靠还是转包问题导致的无效，工程质量验收合格后，以合同无效否定了施工方的优先受偿权及请求发包方支付延期付款违约金的权利，二审认定采取“挂靠”方式签订工程施工合同无效，而工程质量验收合格后，处理优先受偿权和违约金问题时回避了合同的效力问题，实际上是比照有效合同进行处理的。关于该案的焦点有二:一是无资质或超资质签订的建筑工程施工合同的效力认定及处理。二是工程价款结算中的证据认定及举证责任分配。建筑工程是通过劳务将建筑材料转化为物，通过分析，对无效建筑施工合同的处理既遵从无效合同的基本处理原则，又要结合建筑工程的特性，坚持依成本核算财产返还、依照过错原则确定损失承担、禁止非法牟利等原则，来统一司法适用。该案的另一关键点在于工程价款结算中发包方未在约定期限内对结算书提出异议或答复则视为发包方对结算书的认可的约定在合同无效时是否还有约束力，同时发包人证明其在约定期限内对结算书提出了异议的证据是否被采信，是一、二审判决迥异的关键，可见，在举证责任的分配和证据证明力的判断上，法院存在较大自由裁量空间，因此在发包方占主导地位的建筑市场，承包人在建筑施工和履行合同过程中存在较大法律风险，应注意资料的收集和证据的保存，在权利受到侵害时应及时寻求法律救济。更多还原

【Abstract】 Without qualification or beyond qualification, borrowing others’ qualificationsigning construction contracts is in violation of the "construction law" about theprohibited provisions about construction quality in construction law, however, thesupreme court interpreted that if the construction is accepted but the contract isinvalid, the contract price shall be paid in terms of construction contract, if theessence is null and void, the contract is treated effective, it will avoid the legislativepurpose of the" construction law" about the construction quality,which will causeconstruction market disorder and the lack of unity in legal application. The case onHotel construction contract dispute of Feng Dunjing v. Kun Lun, the trial court andthe court of second instance identified that the contract was invalid but the verdict isdifferent, the first instance court found that the contract is invalid emphasizing thecontractor was not qualified, but it avoided the reason that whether anchored orsubcontract problems lead to be invalid, after project quality was accepted, the firstinstance court denied the priority right to be repaid of the contractor and liquidateddamages which the contractor demanded the party awarding the contract because ofthe deferred payment, the second instance court found that signing the constructioncontract taking the method of " anchored" is null and void, but after the projectquality was accepted, the process of handling the problems of the priority right andthe liquidated damages had avoided the validity of the contract,and it is actually avalid contract. The issues of this case are as follows: first, the identification andtreatment on the contract of without qualification or beyond qualification. Second, theevidence identification of and the allocation of the burden of proof in the project pricesettlement. Construction is through labor making materials into the object, after theanalysis,the treatment of invalid construction contract should be:it is followed thebasic principles of the valid contract,combining the construction characteristics,adhering to the property returns in accordance with the cost accounting, determiningthe bear of obligation in accordance with the principle of fault, banning illegalprofit and so on, which unified the judicial application. The another key point is thatis it binding when the contract is invalid in which the provision about settlement bookwhich interprets that no any objection to the settlement book or no reply to it will bedeemed validity of the settlement book. At the same time, it is the key point to differ the verdicts of the first instance court and the second instance court. It is obvious thatthe court has large discretion in the judgment of the allocation of the burden of proofand evidence certificate dint. In the construction market which dominated by the partyawarding the contract, contractor will have the legal risks in the construction andperformance of the contract process, and should pay attention to informationcollection and preservation of evidence, and seek legal relief when the right isinfringed.更多还原