Case synopsis:

     March 2, 2009 by the defendant Li XX and a construction company in Shandong signed the "service fee agreement", "the defendant to the plaintiff agreed with the Hebei XX Real Estate Development Co. Ltd. XX project signing project contract agreement to provide intermediary services, service fee payment, contract in the plaintiff and the Hebei XX real estate development Company Limited for the first time on the day, 500000 yuan". The plaintiff and property companies signed the contract agreement, and not to the party pay labor service for the first time, so in March 12, 2009 the plaintiff and the defendant was signed March 2nd "labor service fee agreement" in the first phase of 500000 yuan service fee has signed "was in charge of agreement", "the defendant the plaintiff agreed first service charges 500000 yuan as the project owners, for reasons not to proceed in a week full refund Party B service fee, otherwise, the defendant bear the date of signing the agreement according to three times the interest on bank credit to repay to the loss of interest, Hebei XX auction companies as a suretyship of joint and several liability, scope of the guarantee and the principal debt and the interest thereof; construction after this agreement automatically failure", in the supplementary agreement that the defendant received the labor service fee 500000 yuan a whole.

        In January 3, 2011, the plaintiff to a Hebei court, claims "the project developer is Hebei XX real estate development company did not let the plaintiff's construction", requiring the defendant and the Hebei XX auction companies based on the "supplementary agreement" bear the responsibility and compensation for the loss of interest duty refund.

          As the defendant lawyer Li XX, based on the detailed analysis of the defendant's statements and evidence provided, through the investigation and collection of evidence, the fierce trial, eventually formed the following reply:

Civil pleading

The respondent Li XX, male, the Han nationality, born in May 19XX year X, live in XX city of Hebei Province East District Ming Garden Road 28, 15 Building 2 unit 301.

      XX, the first construction and Installation Engineering Co. v. respondent return service fee contract dispute case, the contract is the intermediary services provided by the intermediary to the principal contract. Its characteristic is: the intermediator reports to the principal the opportunity for concluding a contract or provides media services contract, that is usually said the report or medium intermediary intermediary.The intermediary is not between the client and the third person of the parties to the contract; the intermediary no right to intervene the nature of between principal and the third party contract.In the case of the respondent in the intermediary position. In this case, the plaintiff's claim has no basis, so it can't satisfy the claims of the plaintiff, reply as follows:

A,The successful, the respondent to obtain the corresponding reward is the plaintiff should fulfill its obligations, and the respondent shall enjoy rights. AndThe plaintiff claims basis (the "supplementary agreement") for the automatic construction and failure, the plaintiffHave no right to demand the return of labor service fee,

         1, the plaintiff and the respondent in March 2, 2009 signed the "service fee agreement", the "agreement" on the rights and obligations of the parties have a clear agreement. "After signing the agreement", the respondent who provide related construction projects "DRDR" information for the plaintiff, and the respondent to engage in intermediary services based on a contract to the successful construction of the project(the plaintiff and"DRDR"Project developers in March 8, 2009 signed the" construction contract ". According to the characteristics of the contract of brokerage, the respondent has completed the obligations in accordance with the law, should obtain the corresponding reward (the first stage of labor service fee of 500000 yuan as a whole).

      2, Hebei XX Real Estate Development Company Limited has confirmed the construction site, and the company also to the plaintiff to pay a certain amount of project funds, then, according to the "supplementary agreement" agreement, the agreement in the plaintiff's construction had been automatically, so the plaintiff has no right to the "supplementary agreement" rights advocate.

Two,The confusion of the concept "developers" and "owners".Hebei XXReal estate development company limited"DRDR"The project developers, not the owner, does not comply with the contract refund conditions, and the plaintiff has been entering the construction, nor by the landlord not carry on evidence.

     1,Real estate developers refers to the development and management of real estate enterprises as the main body; the owner refers to the housing ownership, so the developers and owners are two different concepts.The plaintiffs:"DRDR"Project developers (Hebei XXReal Estate Development Company Limited) can not let the plaintiff's construction. That is why even the plaintiff failed to get developers also, but notOwnerThe reason, so the two sides agreed not to refund conditions.

      Underground Garage Engineering 2, the construction of the "DRDR" project, the project is an integral part of the construction project contract signing of the plaintiff and the respondent's labor service fee in the agreement, and the plaintiff from "DRDR" (XX project developers Hebei Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.) get the related works, DescriptionThe plaintiff has the construction approach (withHebei XXReal estate development has proved and payment certificate issued by the company to prove), in addition to the construction of the project is the result of the plaintiff and the Hebei XX Real Estate Development Co. Ltd. signed the agreement, the respondent did not participate in the right essence, specific performance is the rights and obligations of the parties, not associated with the respondent as intermediary. (so what is it? Why not go? The plaintiff also need to come up with concrete evidence to prove, but so far the plaintiff failed to come up with effective evidence for "owners" reasons for not go).

      To sum up, the first respondent brokerage (500000 yuan) to obtain the reasonable and legitimate, followed by 8 on day 23 signed the "supplementary agreement" because the plaintiff did not "by owner" reason is not evidence, does not comply with the contract refund conditions, once again the agreement for "the site construction" conditions are met automatic failure, so the plaintiff's claims have no basis, request your hospital dismissed plaintiffs request in accordance with the law, the above opinion for the court to adopt.

                                                                                                                   Respondent: Lee XX                                 

                                                                                                                           Date