被罚
Civil Engineer
The foundation pit design unit was sentenced to pay about 1.7 million yuan in compensation! So don't just provide another set of electronic drawings to the construction unit for construction.
In the process of foundation pit construction of a project in Yunnan, the adjacent police station office building and 10 houses in a community were damaged by foundation sinking and cracking, and at the same time, the surrounding 8 households were partially damaged, resulting in an economic loss of about 40 million yuan.
The foundation pit design unit was sentenced to pay about 1.7 million yuan for 5% of the liability, and the construction unit for 25% of the responsibility, the construction unit for 60% of the responsibility, and the supervision unit for 10% of the responsibility.
all
Yunnan Provincial High People's Court
Civil Judgments
(2017) Yun Min Chu No. 90
Plaintiff: Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.
Defendant: China Railway Construction Group Co., Ltd.
Defendant: Yunnan Institute of Geological Engineering Survey and Design.
Defendant: Yunnan Province Antai Construction Project Construction Drawing Design Document Review Center.
Defendant: Yunnan Geological Engineering Second Survey Institute.
Defendant: Yunnan Development and Construction Supervision Co., Ltd.
Defendant: Yunnan Construction Engineering Quality Inspection Station Co., Ltd.
The plaintiff, Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Radio and Television Company), and the defendants China Railway Construction Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Railway Company), Yunnan Geological Engineering Survey and Design Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Geological Survey Institute), Yunnan Antai Construction Engineering Construction Drawing Design Document Review Center (hereinafter referred to as Antai Center), Yunnan Geological Engineering Second Survey Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Second Survey Institute), Yunnan Development and Construction Supervision Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Supervision Company), In the case of Yunnan Construction Engineering Quality Inspection Station Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the quality inspection station) dispute over the right of recovery, after the case was filed on June 26, 2017, this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law, and tried the case in open court on August 14, 2017 and November 30, 2017. Tang Xiaoli, Liu Yangshishu and Geng Guoping, the entrusted agents ad litem of the defendant Antai Center, Liu Keping and Tang Xiaoli, the entrusted agents ad litem of the defendant Second Investigation Institute, Huang Dezhong and Zhou Guojing, the entrusted agents ad litem of the defendant supervision company, and Wu Fan and Song Jun, the entrusted agents ad litem of the defendant's quality inspection station, attended the court to participate in the litigation. The case is now closed.
The Radio and Television Company filed a lawsuit with this court: 1. Divide the proportion of responsibility borne by the six defendants in the process of disposing of the dilapidated house in Baima in accordance with the law;2. Order the six defendants to repay all expenses advanced by the plaintiff in the process of disposing of the dilapidated house in Baima (including rescue expenses, maintenance, relocation, resettlement, compensation, appraisal and other related expenses) temporarily calculated to May 31, 2017 The expenses directly advanced by the plaintiff in the amount of RMB 49,579,861.69 directly paid by the plaintiff until May 31, 2017); The six defendants were ordered to bear the plaintiff's capital occupation fees from the date of advance payment to the date of actual repayment of the money in proportion to their liability (temporarily calculated as of May 31, 2017 with 49,579,861.69 yuan as the principal amount of 16,017,763.36 yuan); 4. The six defendants were ordered to bear the plaintiff's attorney fees of 480,000 yuan incurred by the plaintiff in asserting rights and interests in accordance with the proportion of liability; 5. The six defendants were ordered to bear all the litigation costs of the case (including litigation fees, preservation fees, announcement fees, and judicial appraisal fees). Facts and reasons: In 2011, the plaintiff launched the "Urban Village Reconstruction Project in No. 5 Area of Xishan District" as the construction unit, and in the second half of 2012, China Railway Company, which was responsible for the construction of the foundation pit support project and the designer of the project, occurred during the excavation construction of the deep pit in the adjacent Baima East District due to the impact of the construction, and the houses were subsided, cracked and other phenomena occurred due to the impact of construction, and then identified by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District, Kunming City, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 10 houses are identified as Class D dangerous houses, and the houses need to be immediately stopped and evacuated. After the incident, the Xishan District People's Government activated the emergency plan to immediately evacuate the people, and the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau) organized a number of expert groups to identify and analyze the responsibility for the damage to the houses in the eastern district of Baima, and after the analysis and appraisal of the expert group, and made an expert opinion on November 28, 2015, the expert group believed that the six defendants involved in the construction of the case were at fault for causing the damage to 10 houses in the eastern district of Baima, and in order to ensure the personal and property safety of the damaged residents and social stability, the plaintiff should pay the rescue fee in advance at the request of the people's government of Xishan DistrictThe plaintiff has the right to recover from the responsible party for repair, relocation, resettlement, compensation, appraisal and other related expenses. The plaintiff's litigation claims of 49,579,861.69 yuan are: 1. 30,531,313.21 yuan for the removal and resettlement of 424 households; 2. 950,000 yuan for the cost of the demolition company; 3. 1,187,905.8 yuan for appraisal fees; 4. 538,594.17 yuan for design and surveying and mapping; 5. 464,779.2 yuan for security fees; 6. 195,000 yuan for reconstruction environmental impact assessment; 7. 601,100 yuan for legal services; 8. Case agency fees (lawyer's fees for 8 other cases) are 299,684.4 yuan, 9. Water and electricity expenses are 20,320.5 yuan, 10. Other expenses are 6,761,809.61 yuan, and the above total is 41,550,506.89 yuan.
The expenses outside the scope of 424 households were 8,029,354.8 yuan, which were: 1. 2,485,275.24 yuan for damage to the houses of the Daguanlou Police Station, and 2. 5,544,079.56 yuan for other maintenance expenses.
The defendant China Railway Company replied: 1. The plaintiff's first claim did not have the benefit of the lawsuit, and the first claim overlapped with the second claim and should be dismissed. The Plaintiff Radio and Television Company used the Expert Advisory Opinion as an important basis for asserting that the defendants should bear the loss costs, and the Expert Advisory Opinion clearly pointed out that the plaintiff Radio and Television Company was at fault in four aspects, namely, the plaintiff failed to apply for a construction permit, the survey report was not reviewed, and the plaintiff was not at fault. The plaintiff requested China Railway Company to continue the construction when the design and construction drawings were not reviewed, and when China Railway Company reported to the plaintiff that the settlement of the surrounding houses exceeded the early warning value, the plaintiff requested China Railway Company to continue the construction, and the plaintiff was seriously at fault in the construction of the project in this case, and bore most of the costs incurred in dealing with the damage to the house. 2. The Expert Advisory Opinion did not have the signature of the expert, similar witness testimony, the expert did not appear in court, the Expert Advisory Opinion did not require China Railway Company to participate in the expression of opinions in the process of making it, and the procedure was flawed. 3. The Ya'an earthquake on April 20, 2013 and the defects of the house itself also had a certain impact on the damage to the house, and the plaintiff shall bear the relevant liability for this part of the cause. 4. The Plaintiff submitted the Housing Safety Appraisal Report issued by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office in Xishan District, Kunming City, claiming that the damaged houses should be demolished, and the appraisal report submitted by China Railway Company from the National Construction Engineering Quality Supervision and Inspection Center (hereinafter referred to as the National Inspection Center Report) clearly stated that the damaged houses only needed to be reinforced and did not need to be demolished. The plaintiff's claim for advance payment was based on the Special Audit Report The audit report was unilaterally commissioned by the plaintiff, the relocation and resettlement fees were included in the scope of the reconstruction and reconstruction project of Baima No. 5 area for the implementation of 10 damaged houses, not because the damage to the houses did reach the level of demolition, and the resettlement period was only a reasonable period for house reinforcement, which was only 115 days, and the plaintiff claimed that the relocation and resettlement fees for 424 households during the period from 2014 to 2016 were not based on sufficient basis, and on April 11, 2013, the Xishan District People's Government required the plaintiff to complete the demolition and reconstruction planning plan for approval before April 20, 2013, and then the Xishan District People's Government issued a reminder letterAs of August 15, 2017, the plaintiff had not completed the work, and the plaintiff was responsible for the expansion of the loss of resettlement costs, and the legal service fees and case agency fees should be borne by the plaintiff, and the audit report should not be used as the basis for the plaintiff's disbursement.
The defendant Geological Survey Institute replied that the Radio and Television Company signed the "Construction Project Survey Contract" with the Geological Survey Institute The geological survey institute performed according to the contract without breach of contract, the quality of the survey report submitted by the geological survey institute is qualified, and it should not bear the liability for compensation, the radio and television company began the foundation pit construction in September 2011, March 26, 2012 The settlement of 2 buildings in the Baima community has exceeded the early warning value, and the foundation pit support partially failed on August 8, 2012, and the survey report of the geological survey institute has not passed the review and delivery of construction on November 20, 2012, and the construction drawings (including survey documents) shall not be used without examination and qualification, and the foundation pit support of the radio and television company has failed, resulting in the damage to the surrounding houses of the foundation sinking and the geological survey institute has nothing to do with it, and the geological survey institute should not be liable for compensation。
The defendant Antai Center replied that it was not a qualified defendant in this case, and that it was not the subject of liability for infringement and should not be liable for compensation, and that Antai Center conducted a pre-review of the materials provided by the radio and television company in accordance with the pre-review notice issued by the Yunnan Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and found that there were problems with the materials submitted by the radio and television company, and promptly replied to the radio and television company to revise and supplement them. Before Antai Center issued the first review opinion that the materials submitted by the radio and television company were unqualified, the radio and television company had already carried out the actual construction in July 2011, and the radio and television company had already built the project without examination and approval, and used unreviewed drawings for construction, resulting in the damage to 10 houses in the eastern district of Baima, and the radio and television company was primarily responsible for the occurrence of the accident, and the Antai Center should not be liable for compensation.
The defendant Second Investigation Court replied that there was no contractual relationship between the Second Investigation Court and the Radio and Television Company, and the Second Investigation Court was not a qualified defendant in this case and should not be liable for compensation. Radio and television company in September 2011 began to carry out the construction of foundation pit support, on October 11, 2011, the second survey institute submitted the foundation pit support plan through the expert review, the quality is qualified. The damage to 10 houses in Baima East District has nothing to do with the foundation pit support plan of the Second Survey Institute, and the Second Survey Institute should not be liable for compensation.
The defendant supervision company replied that the radio and television company clearly divided the proportion of responsibility in the complaint, and that in exercising the right of recovery, the radio and television company did not have the right to recover the litigation conditions, and the litigation claim should be dismissed, and the "Expert Advisory Opinion" was not an authoritative judicial appraisal conclusion and had no legal effect, and when the proportion of fault liability and the various reasons for causing the dilapidated house were not clear, it was not improper for the radio and television company to advance funds as the construction party. Request for dismissal of the litigation claim of the radio and television company.
The defendant's quality inspection station replied that the radio and television company was the subject of joint infringement and should bear the main responsibility. In October 2011, the quality inspection station signed a technical service contract with the radio and television company, stipulating that the quality inspection station would provide monitoring data reports to the plaintiff radio and television company, and the quality inspection station would use six monitoring methods for monitoring, and the quality inspection station had provided early warning reports for 9 houses before March 2012, but the radio and television company did not pay attention to it, and the quality inspection station was not at fault for the occurrence of damage and should not be liable for compensation.
Based on the evidence presented by both parties, cross-examination and trial, the facts of the case confirmed by this court are as follows:
On February 12, 2011, the Radio and Television Company signed the Construction Engineering Survey Contract (1) with the Geological Survey Institute, and the Geological Survey Institute was entrusted by the Radio and Television Company to undertake the survey task of the No. 5 area reconstruction project of Zhongcun in Xishan District. In April 2011, the Geological Survey Institute issued the "Foundation Pit Special Geotechnical Engineering Survey Report" and the annex, the main content of the survey report suggests: according to the environmental conditions around the foundation pit, the design and construction plan should consider the engineering environment and the impact on the surrounding buildings, the foundation pit excavation is recommended to use the pile + internal support support scheme and deep stirring waterproof curtain joint support, must ensure the safety of the surrounding buildings and road pipelines, pipe networks, etc.
On February 27, 2012, the radio and television company and the Geological Survey Institute sent the survey report to the Antai Center for review, and on May 25, 2012, the Antai Center issued the cloud review AT2012-055 (1) "Construction Drawing Design Document Review Report", the review opinion: the survey report basically complies with the relevant regulations after review, and the report still has deficiencies, which can be used for design after supplementation and modification. On November 16, 2012, the radio and television company and the geological survey institute sent the survey report to the Antai Center for review, and on November 20, 2012, the Antai Center issued the cloud review AT2012-055 (2) "Construction Drawing Design Document Review Report", review opinions: the survey report basically complies with the relevant regulations after review, and the report still has deficiencies, which can be used for design after supplementation and modification.
On October 15, 2011, the Radio and Television Company and the Supervision Company signed two "Construction Project Entrustment Supervision Contracts", and the Supervision Company entrusted the Supervision Company to supervise the basic engineering, main engineering, roofing engineering, hydropower, fire protection engineering, and installation engineering within the scope shown in the design drawings of the project.
On October 11, 2011, the Radio and Television Company signed the "Technical Service Contract" with the Quality Inspection Station, and the Radio and Television Company entrusted the Quality Inspection Station to provide special technical services for the foundation pit support project and the settlement monitoring of the upper main structure in the No. 5 area of Zhongcun in Xishan District.
On November 3, 2011, the Radio and Television Company and China Railway Corporation signed the "Construction General Contracting Contract", and the Radio and Television Company awarded the reconstruction project of No. 5 Area of Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, Kunming City, Yunnan Province to China Railway Corporation for construction.
On June 6, 2016, the Second Survey Institute sent a letter to the Radio and Television Company, which read: "As a design unit, our institute is entrusted by China Railway Corporation to undertake the construction drawing design of the foundation pit support scheme in the No. 5 area of Zhongcun in Xishan District".
In 2012, the radio and television company started the construction of the "Xishan District No. 5 Area Village Reconstruction Project", which was contracted by China Railway Corporation, the Geological Survey Institute was the foundation pit support engineering survey, and the Antai Center was the pre-review unit of the construction documents (including the survey report), and the construction drawing design of the deep foundation pit support project was entrusted by China Railway Company to the Second Survey Institute to be responsible for the design, and the supervision company supervised the construction of the project, and the quality inspection station monitored the settlement of the foundation pit support project and the upper main structure, and the above participating units were the plaintiffs and six defendants in this case.
In 2012, during the construction of the foundation pit of China Railway Company, the adjacent office building of Daguan Police Station and 10 houses in Baima East District, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12, were damaged by foundation sinking and cracking, and at the same time, 8 households including 25, 26 and 37 in the surrounding Baima East District were partially damaged.
On February 1, 2013, the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District, Kunming City, issued a notice to the Radio and Television Company, requesting the evacuation of residents of Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 in the eastern district of Baima and the office building of the Daguan Police Station as soon as possible.
On November 2, 2012, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau "Minutes of the Work Conference on the Promotion of Housing Safety around the No. 5 Urban Village Reconstruction Area and Foundation Pit". After that, after the application of the radio and television company, on April 26, 2013, the housing safety appraisal office of Xishan District, Kunming City, identified the safety of the damaged houses, and issued the "Housing Safety Appraisal Report" respectively, and the appraisal conclusion was: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 houses were greatly affected by the foundation pit construction of No. 5 area of Zhongcun in Xishan District, and belonged to Class D dangerous houses. It is recommended to stop using it immediately and evacuate people.
In October 2015, in accordance with the notice requirements of the Yunnan Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau organized experts to analyze and study the causes of housing damage in Baima East District and the problems existing in the participating units.
1. Cause analysis: 1. The damage to the foundation settlement, cracking, and tilting of 10 houses in Baima East District, Xishan District, was caused by the deep foundation pit excavation construction of the No. 5 area reconstruction project of Urban Village in Xishan District, carried out by the Radio and Television Company. 2. During the excavation of the deep foundation pit of the No. 5 area reconstruction project of Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, the failure of part of the water interception curtain in the foundation pit (causing the loss of groundwater in the permeable layer such as a large amount of fine sand and round gravel and gravel on the foundation pit wall), and the failure of the local support structure (the fracture of some support piles, the decline of the anchor force of some anchor cables, and the failure of anchor cable anchorage) are the main reasons for the damage caused by foundation settlement, cracking, and house tilting of 10 houses in Baima East District around the foundation pit.
Second, the problems existing in the construction units of deep foundation pit projects:
As the survey unit of foundation pit support engineering: (1) the survey is not in accordance with the requirements of the specifications and regulations such as the "Geotechnical Engineering Survey Specification" (GB50021-2001), the "Technical Regulations for Building Foundation Pit Support" (JGJ-2012), and the "Technical Regulations for Geological Exploration and Sampling of Construction Engineering" (JGJ/T87-2012) to carry out effective and detailed special exploration work for the foundation pit. The number of samples is insufficient, the physical and mechanical properties of the compressed layer soil in the foundation pit site are not sampled, and the physical and mechanical properties test of the compressed layer soil in the foundation pit site are not carried out. The proposed parameters of the physical and mechanical properties of the corresponding soil layer are not sufficient. (2) The investigation of the surrounding environment such as the foundation form and buried depth of the surrounding buildings and structures of the foundation pit is insufficient. (3) The pre-examination opinions of the foundation pit investigation report and the supplementary investigation report have not been substantially responded to and replied.
Antai Center, as the pre-review unit of the survey report: there are problems in the tracking, implementation and control of the reply of the survey unit on the pre-review of the survey report. After the survey unit did not make a substantive response and reply to the pre-review of the foundation pit survey report and the supplementary survey report, it did not carry out effective control and control.
As the construction drawing design unit of the foundation pit support project, the Second Survey Institute (1) provided two different construction drawings of the supporting structure at the same time, one of the supporting structures is "row pile + inner anchor section reaming pressure dispersion anchor cable + local gusset", and the other supporting structure is "row pile + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset". Among them, the construction drawings submitted to the construction drawing review unit (Antai Center) are "row piles + inner anchor section reaming pressure dispersed anchor cable + local gusset", while the construction drawings handed over to the construction unit and the construction unit (China Railway Company) are "row piles + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset". In the actual construction, the construction unit shall carry out the construction according to the construction drawing of "row pile + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset" that has not been reviewed by the construction drawing review unit.
(2) The design unit did not carry out the work in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau's "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) that "construction must be carried out in strict accordance with the requirements of the reviewed deep foundation pit design documents, construction plans and relevant technical specifications and standards". (3) There is no foundation pit excavation diagram in the design document, and the foundation pit support design basis is not sufficient. (4) In the foundation pit support construction drawings submitted by the design unit, the special requirements for the verticality of the water-stopping pile of the water interception curtain are not clearly marked. According to the design and construction drawings and the current construction drawing specifications, the forking of the long spiral stirring waterproof curtain occlusion pile (the long spiral stirring pile and the supporting pile occlusion form a waterproof curtain) is difficult to avoid. In fact, if the water interception curtain of this foundation pit project is to be successful, the verticality of the waterstop pile needs to be higher than the relevant national specifications. (5) The major design changes involving the safety of foundation pit engineering, such as "foundation pit seepage control and water-stopping structure reinforcement", "foundation pit yang angle reinforcement", "support pile fracture and disposal", which should have been presided over by the design unit, were completed by the construction unit, which did not meet the requirements of the national capital construction procedure management regulations.
Supervision company: (1) The supervision company did not carry out supervision work according to the construction drawings. After receiving the construction drawings reviewed by the construction drawing review unit (Antai Center), the construction unit, the design unit and the construction unit were still ignored after the construction of the unreviewed "row pile + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset" construction drawings, and only marked on the drawings received, and failed to report to the construction administrative department and relevant departments of the project in a timely manner that the construction unit, the design unit and the construction unit did not carry out construction according to the reviewed construction drawings. (2) The supervision company failed to effectively supervise the construction unit to carry out the construction according to the design documents (including drawings) approved by the review; failed to effectively supervise the construction unit and the third-party testing unit to carry out comprehensive construction monitoring in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Specifications for Monitoring of Building Foundation Pit Engineering (GB50497-2009), and failed to effectively supervise the construction unit and the third party to monitor the groundwater level of the foundation pit and the horizontal displacement of the deep soil. The foundation pit is adjacent to important buildings (subways) and pipelines to carry out monitoring, and the construction unit is not effectively urged to set up recharge on the outside of the foundation pit excavation line to control the groundwater level balance. (3) in August 2012 found that there is a local failure of the foundation pit support, only to the construction unit issued a memorandum on the supervision of the existence of local failure of the foundation pit, in the case of the construction unit without any feedback, do not make effective and decisive decisions, and do not report the behavior of the construction unit to the construction administrative department and relevant departments of the project in a timely manner. (4) the supervision company is not in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development "on further strengthening the construction management of deep foundation pit engineering notice" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) document stipulates that "must be based on the specification, survey report, review opinions, design plan, construction plan and other relevant information documents, combined with the characteristics of deep foundation pit engineering, the development of targeted supervision implementation rules, clear key processes and important parts, to achieve 100% side station, the surrounding environment deformation of the allowable value, early warning value issued an early warning notice, the release rate, The items that need to be inspected and tested as stipulated by regulations, norms and standards must be tracked, supervised and inspected, relevant records must be made, and rectification notices must be issued in a timely manner when problems are found. That is, the supervision unit did not fully and thoroughly perform the duties of the project site supervision, and failed to achieve 100% side station for key processes such as mud preparation and anchor cable hole formation with the support pile of the supporting pile in December 2012, and the local backpressure backfill of the foundation pit. (5) the supervision company is not in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development "on further strengthening the construction management of deep foundation pit projects" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) document stipulates that "the supervision unit must timely grasp the monitoring data, deep foundation pit engineering in danger or accidents, must immediately report to the local construction administrative departments and relevant departments" to carry out work. After the construction of the deep foundation pit of the No. 5 reconstruction project in Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, caused the foundation settlement, cracking and tilting of 10 houses in Baima East District, the supervision company did not immediately report to the construction administrative department and relevant departments of the project. (6) The supervision unit's records on the concealed project are chaotic and inconsistent with the construction unit. (7) In 2011, the excavation of the deep foundation pit of the No. 5 area reconstruction project in Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, caused damage to the office of the surrounding police station, and in August 2012, it was found that there was a partial failure of the foundation pit, and after the foundation pit support pile was broken in December 2012, no decisive measures were taken, and a stop-work order was not issued in time;
China Railway Company, as the construction unit: (1) Before construction, the investigation of the surrounding environment of the foundation pit (including surrounding buildings and underground pipe network) was not comprehensive and thorough, and the preparation for the impact of foundation pit excavation and support on the surrounding buildings (including surrounding buildings and underground pipe network) was insufficient. (2) The construction unit did not carry out effective construction in accordance with the "Construction Organization Design" and the "Safety Special Construction Plan" in the foundation pit excavation and support measures, that is, the construction unit did not set up a recharge well on the outside of the foundation pit excavation line in time to control the groundwater level balance. (3) The construction unit did not carry out the work in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau's "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) that "construction must be carried out in strict accordance with the requirements of the reviewed deep foundation pit design documents, construction plans and relevant technical specifications and standards". (4) The construction unit did not carry out the work in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau's "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) that "major survey and design and construction plan changes involved in the construction process must be reported to the construction unit to reorganize the expert review, and the review opinions and revised plans must be reported to the safety supervision department for the record", and the construction unit still follows the original "pile row +" construction drawing after receiving the "pile row + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset". The construction organization design and safety special construction plan of the inner anchor section reaming pressure dispersed anchor cable + local gusset were carried out, resulting in the construction basis of the anchor cable being inconsistent with the on-site acceptance; (5) The construction unit knew that according to the design and construction drawings and the current construction technical specifications, the long spiral stirring waterproof curtain occlusion pile (the long spiral stirring pile and the supporting pile occlusion formed a waterproof curtain) split is difficult to avoid, and there may be a partial failure of the foundation pit water-stopping curtain, and no measures should be taken. (6) The acceptance record of the concealed project of the construction unit is chaotic and inconsistent with the supervision unit. (7) The construction unit is not in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) document stipulates that "it is necessary to formulate an emergency plan to prevent the collapse of deep foundation pit accidents, and when the collapse of deep foundation pit excavation and enclosure engineering occurs or seriously threatens the safety of surrounding facilities and buildings, it is necessary to immediately start the emergency plan. The supervision unit must take prompt measures to control the development of the situation, prevent secondary accidents, and immediately report to the local construction administrative departments and relevant departments, and it is strictly forbidden to delay or conceal the work of "carrying out the work. In 2011, the excavation of the deep foundation pit of the No. 5 area reconstruction project in the urban village of Xishan District led to damage to the offices of the surrounding police stations, the fracture of the foundation pit support pile in December 2012, and the large-scale foundation settlement, cracking, and house tilting of 10 houses in the eastern district of Baima from February to April 2013.
As a third-party monitoring unit, the quality inspection station does not carry out comprehensive third-party monitoring work in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Specifications for the Testing of Building Foundation Pit Engineering (GB50497-2009) and the third-party monitoring contract signed with the construction unit. That is, third-party monitoring was not carried out in a timely manner in 2011, but only began in March 2011. (2) Failure to carry out comprehensive third-party monitoring in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Specifications for Testing of Building Foundation Pit Engineering (GB50497-2009). In the case that the monitoring report shows that the tensile force of the anchor cable of the foundation pit support structure continues to decline sharply, no warning documents and reminder materials are provided to the construction unit and other participating units.
As the construction unit, the Radio and Television Company (1) was built before the trial. The construction of supporting piles began on September 20, 2011, and 84 waterproof piles have been constructed from September 17 to September 23, 2011, and the design and construction drawings of foundation pit support have only passed the review on October 10, 2011. (2) The design unit provided two different construction drawings of the supporting structure, and the management personnel of the construction unit did not find and stop the construction unit from carrying out construction according to the unreviewed construction drawings. (3) Failure to strictly perform the contract, resulting in the third-party monitoring unit arbitrarily arranging the start time of the third-party safety monitoring of the foundation pit, resulting in a serious lag in the third-party monitoring work. (4) In August 2012, after receiving the supervision memorandum of the supervision unit on the existence of local instability in the foundation pit, no reply was given, regardless of the safety of the project. The construction unit did not follow the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development's "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) document stipulating that "it is necessary to formulate an emergency plan to prevent deep foundation pit collapse accidents." In the event of a deep foundation pit excavation enclosure engineering collapse accident or a serious threat to the safety of surrounding facilities and buildings, the emergency plan should be started immediately, and the construction, construction and supervision units must take prompt measures to control the development of the situation and prevent secondary accidents, and immediately report to the local construction administrative departments and relevant departments, and it is strictly forbidden to delay or conceal the work "to carry out the work. In 2011, the construction unit proposed that the deep foundation pit excavation construction of the No. 5 area reconstruction project in Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, led to damage to the surrounding police station office, and the recharge wells around the foundation pit could not be constructed, and the foundation pit support pile was broken in December 2012, and the deep foundation pit excavation construction in March and April 2013 led to the foundation settlement, cracking, house tilting and other major dangers of 10 houses in Baima East District, and the construction unit did not immediately report to the construction administrative department and relevant departments of the project.
On September 17, 2013, the Radio and Television Company obtained the Construction Permit for Construction Projects.
The audit report is as follows: 1. 1. The relocation and resettlement fee of 424 households is 30,531,313.21 yuan; 2. The fee for the demolition company is 950,000 yuan; 3. The appraisal fee is 1,187,905.8 yuan; 4. The design and surveying and mapping fee is 538,594.17 yuan; 5. The security fee is 464,779.2 yuan; 6. The environmental impact assessment fee for reconstruction is 195,000 yuan; 7. The special legal service fee is 601,100 yuan, 8. the case agency fee (the lawyer's fee for 8 other cases) is 299,684.4 yuan, 9, the water and electricity fee is 20,320.5 yuan, and 10. other expenses (rent and house maintenance fee) are 6,761,809.61 yuan, and the total amount of the above is 41,550,506.89. 2. The expenditure outside the scope of the 424 households was 8,029,354.8 yuan, of which 2,485,275.24 yuan was spent on damage to the house of the Daguanlou police station, and 5,544,079.56 yuan was spent on other maintenance expenses;
Combined with the arguments of both the defendant and the defense, the key issues in dispute in this case are: 1) the cause of the damage to the house involved in the case, 2) the consequences of the damage, 3) whether the six defendants are at fault and whether they should bear the corresponding liability for compensation, and 4) the expenses paid by the radio and television company.
1. On the reasons for the damage to the house involved in the case
This court held that this case was a dispute over the right of recourse arising from infringement, and the Radio and Television Company asserted that the six defendants should bear the expenses they had paid in advance in the disposal of the dilapidated house in Baima in proportion to their liability, and tried this case on the premise of the four constitutive elements of general tort, namely, the existence of harmful acts, the existence of harmful acts, the existence of harmful acts, the fact of damage, and the subjective fault of the perpetrators. The No. 5 area renovation project in Zhongcun, Xishan District, developed and constructed by the Radio and Television Company involved in the case, was contracted by China Railway Company, the Geological Survey Institute surveyed the foundation pit support project, the Antai Center was the pre-review of the survey report, the quality inspection station monitored the foundation pit support project and the settlement of the upper main structure, the supervision company supervised the construction of the project, and the Second Survey Institute was entrusted by China Railway Company to design the construction drawings of the deep foundation pit support project, and the above participating units were the plaintiffs and six defendants in this case.
On September 20, 2011, the radio and television company started the construction of the urban village reconstruction project in the No. 5 area of Xishan District, in 2012, during the construction of the deep foundation pit of China Railway Company, the adjacent Daguan police station office buildings and other surrounding areas were damaged, on April 20, 2013, April 21, 2013, 10 houses in the adjacent Baima East District, Xishan District, were damaged by foundation settlement, cracking, and house tilting, and in October 2015, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau in accordance with the Yunnan Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, The notice of the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development requires that experts be organized to analyze and study the causes of the damage to the houses in Baima East District and the problems existing in the participating units, and the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau twice notified the plaintiff and the six defendants in writing to submit relevant information within the specified time, and the expert group carefully reviewed and analyzed the information submitted by the plaintiff and the six defendants, and formed an "Expert Advisory Opinion" on November 28, 2015, clarifying that 10 houses in Baima East District, Xishan District, had foundation settlement, cracking, The damage to the house tilt is caused by the deep foundation pit excavation construction of the No. 5 area reconstruction project of Chengzhong Village in Xishan District, developed and constructed by the Radio and Television Company, and the failure of part of the water interception curtain in the foundation pit and the failure of the local supporting structure. Based on the application of the Radio and Television Company, this court obtained the "Expert Advisory Opinion" signed by the experts from the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau, and conducted cross-examination, and the expert consultation opinion was lawful in procedure, objective and fair in content, and the expert advisory opinion was accepted by this court as to the cause of the damage to the house.
2. On the consequences of damage
This court believes that in 2012, during the construction of the foundation pit of China Railway Company, the office building of the adjacent Daguan Police Station and 10 houses in Baima East District, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12, were damaged by foundation subsidence and cracking, and at the same time, 8 households including 25, 26 and 37 in the surrounding Baima East District were partially damaged.
On November 2, 2012, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau issued the "Minutes of the Work Conference on the Promotion of Housing Safety around the No. 5 Urban Village Reconstruction Area and Foundation Pit", and the participants of the meeting included the staff of the Palm Shuying Sub-district Office of the Xishan District People's Government, and the representatives of the damaged households. Subsequently, upon the application of the radio and television company, on April 26, 2013, the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District, Kunming City, conducted an appraisal of the safety of the damaged houses, and issued a "Housing Safety Appraisal Report", and the appraisal conclusion was: "10 houses in Baima East District, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, were greatly affected by the foundation pit construction in the No. 5 area of Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, Xishan District, and were Class D dangerous houses. It is recommended to stop using it immediately and evacuate people". On April 27, 2013, the People's Government of Xishan District held a press conference to inform that 10 houses were Class D dangerous houses, stopped using them, and evacuated people.
On March 2, 2017, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau issued the "Reply to the Work Contact Letter of the Radio and Television Company", which clarified that "the appraisal of dilapidated houses issued by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District of Kunming City on April 20, 2013 is legal and valid", and the minutes of the special meeting of the People's Government of Yunnan Province on March 21, 2017 made it clear that the housing safety appraisal report issued by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District is legal and valid, and conforms to the Regulations on the Management of Urban Dangerous Houses issued by the Ministry of Construction The requirements are the basis for solving the reconstruction of dilapidated houses in the eastern district of Baima.
On August 18, 2016, the Xishan District People's Government held a special meeting minutes, which were attended by the plaintiff and the six defendants in this case, and in the formation of the "Minutes of the Special Coordination Meeting", it was clear that the reconstruction and reconstruction plan led by the construction unit radio and television company was as it was, and the other units participating in the meeting unanimously agreed to the reconstruction plan as it was", and the plaintiffs and the six defendants in this case signed and confirmed on the meeting minutes.
To sum up, according to Article 6 of the Ministry of Construction's "Regulations on the Management of Urban Dilapidated Houses", "the real estate administrative departments of the municipal and county people's governments shall set up a housing safety appraisal agency to be responsible for the safety appraisal of the house, and uniformly use the special seal for housing safety appraisal". The appraisal and management of dangerous houses belongs to the administrative functions of the administrative organs, the housing safety appraisal office of Xishan District, Kunming City, the appraisal opinions of the D-level dangerous houses made on the safety of damaged houses, according to the tenth article of the "Dangerous Housing Safety Appraisal Standards", the D-level dangerous houses are the whole dangerous houses, and the load-bearing structure load can not meet the requirements of normal use, and the overall danger of the house must be stopped immediately. The appraisal procedures made by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office in Xishan District, Kunming City are legal, objective and fair, and this court accepts them.
China Railway Company believes that there is a contradiction between the appraisal opinion of the Housing Safety Appraisal Office in Xishan District, Kunming City and the appraisal report of the National Inspection Center, which clearly states that the 10 houses involved in the case do not need to be demolished, but only need to be repaired and reinforced, and applied to this court to appraise the extent and safety of the damage to the 10 houses. Second, on August 18, 2016, the Xishan District People's Government organized the five defendants in this case (Antai Center did not participate) to attend the meeting, and the meeting agreed that the Radio and Television Company, on behalf of the six defendants, would sign the "Agreement on the Reconstruction and Resettlement of Dangerous Houses" with 424 households In September 2016, the Radio and Television Company signed the Agreement on the Reconstruction and Resettlement of Dangerous Houses with 411 of the 424 damaged households, and the Palmshuying Sub-district Office of the Xishan District People's Government signed and sealed the agreement as the supervisory party, and since April 2013, the damaged households have moved out of their original addresses; China Railway Company argued that the cause of the damage to the house did not exclude the existence of quality problems in the house itself and the impact of the earthquake in Ya'an, Sichuan Province on April 20, 2013, but there was no evidence to substantiate this, and the evidence of the relevance of the safety and damage of the damaged house to the litigation claim of the Radio and Television Company was insufficient, and the court did not approve the appraisal application (China Railway Company had been informed in writing on October 26, 2017). According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, "in the event that evidence may be destroyed or difficult to obtain in the future, the parties may apply to the people's court for evidence preservation during the course of litigation, and the people's court may also take the initiative to take preservation measures" China Railway's application does not fall within the scope of evidence preservation under the law, and its application will not be approved (China Railway Corporation has been notified in writing on November 9, 2017). In summary, the evidence of the defense put forward by China Railway Company is insufficient, and this court will not accept it.
3. On the issue of whether the six defendants were at fault and whether they should bear corresponding responsibility
This court held that Article 6 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China: "If an actor infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others due to his fault, he shall bear tort liability, and if the actor is presumed to be at fault in accordance with the provisions of the law, and the actor cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability" and "Article 12: "Where two or more persons separately commit tortious acts and cause the same harmful consequences, and the size of the liability can be determined, each of them shall bear the corresponding responsibility, and if it is difficult to determine the size of the liability, the compensation liability shall be borne equally" and Article 26: The infringed party is also at fault for the occurrence of the damage, and the infringer's liability may be reduced". In this case, as mentioned above, the Expert Advisory Opinion of November 28, 2015 clarified the problems existing in the participating units, and whether the six defendants were at fault should be determined in conjunction with the evidence in the case.
First, on the issue of whether the Geological Survey Institute is at fault and whether it should bear the corresponding responsibility
This court believes that it is the duty of the surveyor to conduct the engineering survey in accordance with the national technical specifications, standards, procedures, the employer's power of attorney and technical requirements, and to provide qualified survey results and materials within the specified time, and to be responsible for them. In this case, the Radio and Television Company and the Geological Survey Institute signed the Construction Project Survey Contract, stipulating that the Geological Survey Institute should assess the possible adverse effects of the buildings and environment at or near the survey site, propose reasonable measures to reduce or avoid the defects, and submit them to the employer for evaluation. The survey report and supplementary survey report issued by the geological survey institute are complete, the survey report on the environmental conditions, design and construction plan around the foundation pit should consider the impact of the engineering environment and the surrounding buildings, and the foundation pit excavation is recommended to use the pile + inner support support scheme and the joint support of the deep stirring waterproof curtain to ensure that the surrounding buildings and road pipelines, The safety of the pipe network is clear, and it is required to pay attention to it, but before the survey report of the Geological Survey Institute is reviewed, the radio and television company has begun the foundation pit construction, and the foundation pit support fails during the construction process, resulting in the damage to the surrounding houses due to the foundation sinking has nothing to do with the survey report of the Geological Survey Institute, and the Geological Survey Institute should not be liable for compensation.
Second, on the issue of whether Antai Center is at fault and whether it should bear the corresponding liability for compensation
According to this court, Article 11 of the Regulations of the State Council on the Quality Management of Construction Projects: "The construction unit shall submit the construction drawing design documents to the construction administrative department of the people's government at or above the county level or other relevant departments for review. Construction drawing design documents without review and approval, shall not be used". In this case, Antai Center, as the pre-review unit of the survey report (construction drawing), twice issued the Yunshi Review AT2012-055 (1) (2) "Construction Drawing Design Document Review Report" to the Radio and Television Company, and the review opinion was: "The survey report basically complies with the relevant regulations after review, and the report still has deficiencies, and can be used for design after supplementation and modification". If the survey report submitted by the radio and television company was not approved by the Antai Center, and the radio and television company was required to supplement and revise it and then make it available for design use, but the radio and television company did not reply, and the construction drawing design documents were not reviewed and approved, the radio and television company used the drawings that had not been reviewed and approved for construction, and the Antai Center was not at fault and should not be liable for compensation for the damage caused.
Third, on the issue of whether the Second Investigation Institute is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation
This court believes that Article 52 of the Construction Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "the quality of survey, design and construction of construction projects must meet the requirements of the relevant national safety standards for construction projects". In this case, the Second Survey Institute, as the construction drawing design unit of the foundation pit support project, must meet the relevant national safety standards for the design of the construction drawings is its legal obligation, and the Second Survey Institute provided two different construction drawings of the supporting structure at the same time, of which the construction drawings submitted to the construction drawing review unit (Antai Center) are one set, and the construction drawings submitted to the construction unit and the construction unit (China Railway Company) are another set. There is no foundation pit excavation diagram in the design document, and the foundation pit payment design is not sufficient. The Second Survey Institute was unable to submit evidence to prove why two different construction drawings of the supporting structures were provided at the same time. At the same time, the Second Survey Institute should have presided over by the design unit of the "foundation pit seepage control and water-stopping structure reinforcement", "foundation pit sunny corner reinforcement", "support pile fracture and disposal" and other major design changes involving the safety of the foundation pit engineering, to the construction unit to complete the design, does not meet the requirements of the national capital construction procedure management regulations, the second survey institute is at fault for the occurrence of damage consequences, should bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
Fourth, on the issue of whether the supervision company is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation
This court believes that Article 35 of the Construction Law of the People's Republic of China: "If the project supervision unit fails to perform its supervision obligations in accordance with the provisions of the entrusted supervision contract, and fails to inspect the project that should be supervised and inspected or fails to inspect in accordance with the regulations, causing losses to the construction unit, it shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation". The supervision company shall be strictly based on the approved construction drawings for supervision is its legal obligation. The "Expert Advisory Opinions" made it clear that the supervision did not carry out the supervision work according to the construction drawings, and found that the construction unit, the design unit and the construction unit carried out the construction according to the unreviewed construction drawings, and only marked on the drawings received, and did not report to the construction administrative department in a timely manner. In August 2012 found that there is a local failure of the foundation pit support, only to the construction unit issued a memorandum on the supervision of the existence of local failure of the foundation pit, in the case of the construction unit without any feedback, do not make effective and decisive decisions, did not report to the construction administrative department in a timely manner, and did not issue a stoppage order in a timely manner, the supervision company is at fault for the occurrence of damage consequences, and should bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
Fifth, on the issue of whether China Railway Corporation is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation
This court held that Article 5 of the Construction Law of the People's Republic of China: "Engaging in construction activities shall abide by laws and regulations, and shall not harm the public interest and the legitimate rights and interests of others" and Article 39: "Construction enterprises shall take measures to maintain safety, prevent dangers, prevent fires, etc., at the construction site; If the construction site may cause damage to the adjacent buildings, structures and special working environment, the construction enterprise shall adopt safety protection measures" and Article 28 of the Regulations on the Administration of Work Safety in Construction Projects: "The construction unit must construct in accordance with the engineering design drawings and construction technical standards, and shall not modify the engineering design without authorization and shall not cut corners." If the construction unit finds that there are errors in the design documents and drawings during the construction process, it shall put forward opinions and suggestions in a timely manner". China Railway Company, as the construction unit, to ensure the stability and safety of the buildings around the foundation pit it it is its legal obligation, it knows that the construction unit has not obtained a construction permit but still starts construction, using unapproved drawings for construction, "expert advisory opinion", clear China Railway Company, as the construction unit of deep foundation pit excavation, excavation in the foundation pit, Insufficient preparation for the impact of support on the surrounding structures, partial water interception curtain failure in the foundation pit, failure of local support structure, failure to set up recharge wells on the outside of the excavation line of the foundation pit in time to control the balance of groundwater level, resulting in the occurrence of damage consequences, China Railway Company is at fault and should bear secondary liability for compensation. China Railway Company believes that after the settlement of the Daguan Police Station reached the early warning value, it sent letters to the Radio and Television Company twice requesting that the work be stopped, but the Radio and Television Company replied to the letter to continue the construction, and promised that all the responsibility would be borne by the Radio and Television Company, and that China Railway Company should not be liable for compensation. This court held that the content of the "Work Contact Letter" submitted by China Railway Company on November 30, 2011 from the Radio and Television Company to China Railway Company: "Regarding the matter proposed by your department to take emergency measures such as suspending work at the west side of the police station, the reply is as follows: the construction of support piles and water-stopping piles will continue to be carried out in this part, and our company will be responsible for any problems" and the content of the "Work Contact Letter" dated December 17, 2011, "Reply on the settlement of the police station, the work of this part will continue to be constructed". The two "Work Contact Letters" had the signature of "Chen Changrun", the project manager of the radio and television company, and the seal of the "project management department of the radio and television company", and the radio and television company did not recognize the authenticity of the two "work contact letters", and applied for an appraisal of Chen Changrun's signature and the seal of the project management department, and after the trial, the radio and television company withdrew the appraisal application on December 25, 2017 on the grounds that the signatures and seals were difficult to sample, and the radio and television company should bear the legal consequences of failing to produce evidence, so the two "work contact letters" were accepted by this court. It is proved that after the settlement of the office building of the Daguan Police Station at the beginning of the construction, China Railway Company sent a letter to the Radio and Television Company requesting that the work be stopped, but the Radio and Television Company replied to the letter and promised that all the responsibilities would be borne by the Radio and Television Company, so the Radio and Television Company should bear the main responsibility for the occurrence of the damage consequences. China Railway Company, as the construction party, knew the danger of continuing the construction after the settlement reached the early warning value, and did not report to the relevant departments when the radio and television company did not agree to stop the work in the reply letter, but still continued the construction, until December 3, 2012 and April 19, 2013, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau issued two suspension notices to China Railway Company, and China Railway Company stopped construction, so China Railway Company should bear secondary responsibility for the occurrence of damage consequences.
Sixth, on the issue of whether the quality inspection station is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation
This court held that on October 11, 2011, the Radio and Television Company signed the "Technical Service Contract" with the quality inspection station As a third-party monitoring unit, the purpose of monitoring is to provide warning material data for the radio and television company, from the monitoring report of the quality inspection station, on October 20, 2011, the quality inspection station uses six monitoring means to monitor, and on November 9, 2011, the settlement of the Daguan police station reached the alarm value, after that, other houses have reached the alarm value, and the quality inspection station has provided data to the radio and television company in a timely manner, and the radio and television company recognized in court the receipt of the test report of the quality inspection station, and the quality inspection station has fulfilled the obligation to monitor and provide warning material dataThe quality inspection station is not at fault for the occurrence of damage consequences and shall not be liable for compensation.
Seventh, on the issue of whether the radio and television company is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation
This court believes that Article 7 of the Construction Law of the People's Republic of China: "Before the commencement of a construction project, the construction unit shall, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state, apply to the construction administrative department of the people's government at or above the county level where the project is located to obtain a construction permit" and Article 11 of the Ministry of Construction's "Regulations on the Quality Management of Construction Projects": "The construction unit shall submit the construction drawing design documents to the construction administrative department of the people's government at or above the county level or other relevant departments for review." Construction drawing design documents without review and approval, shall not be used". In this case, first, the Radio and Television Company, as the construction party, requested the construction party to start construction without obtaining a construction permit, and the Radio and Television Company demanded that the six defendants bear proportional liability for compensation on the basis of the Expert Advisory Opinion. It is clear that the radio and television company, as the construction party, has not been reviewed and approved, and the construction of the supporting pile was started on September 20, 2011, and 84 waterproof piles have been constructed from September 17 to September 23, 2011, and the foundation pit support design and construction drawings have only passed the review on October 10, 2011. In the case of the settlement of the office building of the Daguan Police Station during the construction process, China Railway Company sent a letter to the Radio and Television Company requesting that the work be stopped, but the Radio and Television Company replied to continue the construction and promised that all responsibilities would be borne by the Radio and Television Company, so the Radio and Television Company should bear the main responsibility for the occurrence of the damage consequences, and the Radio and Television Company asserted that it should bear administrative liability, not civil liability。 According to Article 4 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, "the infringer shall bear administrative liability or criminal liability for the same act, which does not affect the tort liability in accordance with the law", so the radio and television company shall bear the corresponding civil liability in accordance with the law.
In summary, the Radio and Television Company's claim that the Second Survey Institute, the Supervision Company, and the China Railway Company should bear responsibility has a corresponding factual basis, and this court supports it, and its request for the Geological Survey Institute, Antai Center, and Quality Inspection Station to bear the liability for compensation is not sufficient and this court does not support it. According to Article 12 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that "if two or more persons separately commit tortious acts and cause the same damage consequence, and the extent of liability can be determined, each of them shall bear the corresponding liability, and if it is difficult to determine the size of the liability, they shall bear equal liability for compensation" and Article 26: "The infringed party is also at fault for the occurrence of the damage, and the liability of the infringer may be reduced", the radio and television company in this case is also an infringer and is also at fault for the occurrence of the damage consequences, and the infringer's liability for compensation can be reduced. In this case, based on the degree of fault of the plaintiff and the defendant, the consequences of the damage, and the causal relationship between the degree of fault and the consequences of the damage, this court determined as follows: the Second Investigation Institute bears 5% of the liability, the supervision company bears 10% of the liability, the China Railway Company bears 25% of the liability, and the Radio and Television Company bears 60% of the liability. The radio and television company's application for an appraisal of the proportion of the six defendants' responsibility was not approved by this court.
Fourth, on the issue of the expenses advanced by the radio and television company
This court held that the radio and television company asserted that it had advanced the expenses in the process of disposing of the dilapidated house in Baima, and submitted the audit report of ShineWing Certified Public Accountants Kunming Branch, and that the items and expenses stated in the audit report should be comprehensively determined in light of the evidence on record.
First, the relocation and resettlement fee of the residents was 30,531,313.21 yuan (including 23,351,583.37 yuan for excessive resettlement, 4,766,119.84 yuan for excessive renting, 1,931,000 yuan for living allowance, 299105 yuan for moving expenses, and 183505 yuan for accommodation expenses), and 424 households were damaged in their houses, of which 411 households signed an "Agreement on the Reconstruction and Resettlement of Dangerous Houses" with the Radio and Television Company, and the expenses were assessed and 411 households issued "receipts" At the same time, on September 2, 2015, the Xishan District People's Government requested instructions from the Kunming Municipal People's Government [2015] Document No. 79 of the Xizheng Request: "Up to now, our district has cooperated with the radio and television company to evacuate and move out of 338 households, signed compensation and resettlement agreements for 328 households, and paid a total of 35 million yuan for maintenance and excessive resettlement. CRC argued that in April 2013, the Xishan District People's Government requested the Radio and Television Company to demolish and rebuild the damaged houses, and that if the Radio and Television Company had carried out this work at that time, one year would have been enough time to complete the reconstruction of the houses, and that the excessive resettlement and rental fees from April 2014 onwards would have been borne by the Radio and Television Company. This court held that although the 10 houses involved in the case were determined to be Class D dilapidated houses in April 2014 and must be demolished and rebuilt, the residents moved out from 2014 to 2016 under the leadership of the Xishan District People's Government, until September 2016, when the Radio and Television Company signed the "Dangerous Housing Reconstruction and Resettlement Agreement" with 411 of the 424 households whose houses were damaged On August 18, 2016, the Xishan District People's Government special "Meeting Minutes" required the radio and television company to complete the approval of the reconstruction plan before August 30, 2016, so the relevant work involving the damage to the house was carried out by the radio and television company, and the reasonable period of the reconstruction work was until May 2017, and the excessive resettlement fee after May 2017, Second, China Railway Company argued that the damaged households should be resettled according to the area of the house ownership certificate, not according to the measured area of the house. This court held that on September 7, 2016, the Xishan District People's Government convened the "Notification and Coordination Meeting on Work Related to Relocation and Resettlement", which was attended by the plaintiff and the six defendants in this case, and the minutes of the meeting clearly stated that "the general plan of surveying and mapping, surveying and mapping area and scope of the reconstruction and reconstruction project of 10 dilapidated houses in Baima East District, and the parties participating in the meeting had no objection", which proved that China Railway Company had no objection to the resettlement of the damaged households according to the measured area of the houses at that time, and now China Railway Company has no evidence to the contrary to deduce the party's commitment at that time, so this defense cannot be established. Third, China Railway Company argued that the excessive rent fee should be implemented in accordance with the relevant documents of urban village renovation of 1,500 yuan per month to 1,600 yuan per month. This court held that the letter dated March 10, 2014 from the Palm Shuying Office of the People's Government of Xishan District to the Radio and Television Company requesting the Radio and Television Company to pay the residents whose houses were damaged was 2,500 yuan per month for temporary rent overpayment, and that the Radio and Television Company implemented this standard in accordance with this standard, which was in line with the actual circumstances of the case, and that China Railway Company's defense could not be established.
In summary, the Radio and Television Company's claim to pay the tenants a relocation and resettlement fee of 30,531,313.21 yuan has a corresponding factual basis, and this court supports this litigation claim.
Second, with regard to the demolition fee of 950,000 yuan, it is the "Entrusted Demolition Contract" signed by the Radio and Television Company and an outsider to demolish the damaged 10 houses, but the 10 damaged houses have not been demolished, and the cost has not actually been incurred, and this court does not support the litigation request of the Radio and Television Company.
Third, with regard to the appraisal fee of 1,187,905.8 yuan, the Radio and Television Company's claim that it entrusts the appraisal department to consult on the cost of the house to be rebuilt, evaluate the impact of the section of the proposed construction site, and preserve the site is not a direct loss caused by infringement from the content of the entrustment contract signed with a number of appraisal departments submitted by the Radio and Television Company, and at the same time, it is indistinguishable from the expenses incurred by the project developed and constructed by the Radio and Television Company, and this court does not support the litigation claim of the Radio and Television Company.
Fourth, with regard to the design surveying and mapping fee of 538,594.17 yuan, the Radio and Television Company asserted that the court supported the expenses incurred by entrusting the appraisal department to survey and map the construction area of the damaged house, design the preliminary plan for the renovation of the dilapidated house, and design the composition of the topographic map, of which the cost of surveying and mapping the construction area of the damaged house was 73,588.68 yuan, which was related to the resettlement compensation plan for the damaged house in this case, and the cost of 73,588.68 yuan was supported by this court, and the court did not support the rest of the expenses.
Fifth, with regard to the reconstruction environmental impact assessment fee of 195,000 yuan, the Radio and Television Company's claim that it entrusts an outsider to conduct an assessment of whether the redevelopment of the sectional house will have an impact on the surrounding environment, and the assessment of the traffic impact of the dilapidated housing reconstruction project, etc., has no necessary relevance to the harmful consequences of this case, and this court does not support the litigation request of the Radio and Television Company.
Sixth, with regard to the security fee of 464,779.2 yuan, the legal service fee of 601,100 yuan, and the case agency fee (lawyer's fees for 8 other cases) of 299,684.4 yuan, the above are not inevitable expenses, and this court does not support the litigation claim of the radio and television company.
Seventh, with regard to the water and electricity charges of 20,320.5 yuan, the Radio and Television Company asserted that it was paid for the households who had not moved out, and that it was the obligation of the households to pay the water and electricity bills, and this court did not support the litigation request of the Radio and Television Company.
Eighth, about other expenses: (1) rental fee of 5,879,466.81 yuan, (2) maintenance fee of 805,782.10 yuan, (3) other expenses of 76,560.7 yuan (including housing agency fees, data copying fees, data production fees, wires, printing production fees, engraving plate production fees, housekeeping service fees, book fees, meal fees, etc.). This court held that, first, the rental fee was 5,879,466.81 yuan, and the radio and television company claimed that the accommodation and rental fees of the damaged residents were temporarily arranged after the house was damaged, and judging from the vouchers, the fee was received by the staff of the radio and television company, and whether the money was used to pay for the accommodation and rental fees after receiving the money did not have corresponding invoices, receipts and other evidence, and could not prove that the fees were indeed paid for the accommodation and rental fees of the residents whose houses were damaged, and this court did not support the litigation request of the radio and television company. Second, the maintenance fee was 805,782.10 yuan, and the radio and television company claimed that in addition to the 10 damaged houses with 424 households, the other 25, 26, and 37 houses with a total of 8 households were damaged, and after investigation, it was submitted by the radio and television company that it and the 8 households jointly entrusted the appraisal department to appraise the repair fee, and the appraisal report, "compensation agreement", "receipt", etc. issued by the appraisal department were confirmed, and the expenses had actually been incurred, but the actual maintenance cost was 607,815.6 yuan, and this court supported it. As for the 197,966.5 yuan of it, judging from the vouchers, it is to pay for the household's electricity bills, property management fees, entertainment expenses, journalists' accommodation fees, etc., and this court does not support the expenses that are not necessarily related to the harmful consequences of this case. Third, the housing agency fee, the cost of copying materials, the cost of making materials, wires, printing fees, engraving costs, housekeeping service fees, book fees, meal expenses, etc., totaled 76,560.7 yuan, and the above expenses were the daily office expenses of the radio and television company, and the expenses that were not necessarily incurred with the damage to the house, and the litigation claim of the radio and television company was not supported.
Ninth, with regard to the cost of 2,485,275.24 yuan paid for the damage to the Daguan Police Station, after investigation, it was found that in 2012, the Daguan Police Station was damaged, and the Radio and Television Company temporarily rented an office building for the Daguan Police Station, and at the same time, at the request of the Xishan Public Security Bureau, it paid for the relocation and installation of the alarm and monitoring system of the Daguan Police Station.
Tenth, the maintenance fee is 5,544,079.56 yuan, and the radio and television company claims that the maintenance of roads, fences, and facades of the walls in the Baima community around the dilapidated houses, and the maintenance of dormitories in other adjacent communities, etc., are not clear from the relevant government documents, meeting minutes, and "expert advisory opinions" that the roads, walls, etc. are within the scope of damage caused by the foundation pit construction in this case, and lack of relevant evidence with the infringement damage in this case, and this court does not support the litigation claim of the radio and television company.
11. With regard to the capital occupation fee of 16,017,763.36 yuan, the "Notarial Certificate of Entrustment Loan Contract" submitted by the Radio and Television Company stated that "the purpose of the loan is the later construction funds of the Daguan Radio and Television Cultural Home Project" was not based on the handling of the damage to the house, and the fund occupation fee lacked relevance to this case, and the litigation claim of the Radio and Television Company was not supported.
12. With regard to the Radio and Television Company's claim that the lawyer's fee of 480,000 yuan in this case is not an inevitable expense, this litigation claim is not supported.
To sum up, the expenses advanced by the radio and television company in the process of disposing of dilapidated houses in Baima are 33,697,992.73 yuan (30,531,313.21 yuan for the relocation and resettlement of residents + 73,588.68 yuan for design and surveying and mapping + 607,815.6 yuan for restoration + 2,485,275.24 yuan for Daguan Police Station)
5% is 1,684,899.64 yuan by the Second Survey Institute, 10% is 3,369,799.27 yuan by the supervision company, 25% is 8,424,498.18 yuan by China Railway Corporation, and 60% is 20,218,795.64 yuan by the radio and television company.
To sum up, the plaintiff Radio and Television Company's claim is partially established, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 6, 12 and 26 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China and Paragraphs 1 and 118 of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
1. The Second Survey Institute of Yunnan Geological Engineering shall pay an advance payment of 1,684,899.64 yuan to Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment;
2. Yunnan Development and Construction Supervision Co., Ltd. shall pay an advance payment of 3,369,799.27 yuan to Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment;
3. China Railway Construction Group Co., Ltd. shall pay an advance payment of 8,424,498.18 yuan to Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment;
4. Reject other litigation claims of Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.
If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt for the period of delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
The case acceptance fee is 372646 yuan, which is 18,632.3 yuan by the Second Survey Institute of Yunnan Geological Engineering, 37,264.6 yuan by Yunnan Development and Construction Supervision Co., Ltd., 93,161.5 yuan by China Railway Construction Group Co., Ltd., and 223,587.6 yuan by Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.
If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you may file an appeal petition with this court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of opposing parties, and the appellant shall submit it to the Supreme People's Court.
Presiding Judge: Gong Rui
Judge Zhou Huiqiong
Judge Wang Jing
19 January 2018
Clerk: Zhao Yan Yunnan Provincial High People's Court Civil Judgment (2017) Yun Min Chu No. 90 Plaintiff: Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Residence: 14th Floor, Software Building, next to Xiyuan Overpass, Second Ring West Road, High-tech Development Zone, Kunming City, Yunnan Province. Legal representative: Xiao Jun, chairman of the company. Entrusted litigation agent: Xu Guogong, lawyer of Yunnan Wanjie Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Entrusted litigation agent: Dao Lu, lawyer of Yunnan Wanjie Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Defendant: China Railway Construction Group Co., Ltd. Residence: No. 20, Shijingshan Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing. Legal representative: Zhao Wei, chairman of the company. Entrusted litigation agent: Qi Zhongfu, male, living in Fangshan District, Beijing, project manager of the company. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Entrusted litigation agent: Xu Wenbin, lawyer of Shanghai Jianwei (Beijing) Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Defendant: Yunnan Institute of Geological Engineering Survey and Design. Residence: No. 172, Dongjiawan Road, Kunming City, Yunnan Province. Legal representative: Yang Ming, general manager of the company. Entrusted litigation agent: Liu Keping, lawyer of Yunnan Huawei Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Entrusted litigation agent: Tang Xiaoli, lawyer of Yunnan Huawei Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Defendant: Yunnan Province Antai Construction Project Construction Drawing Design Document Review Center. Residence: Room 2, Building 21, Xigong Wharf, 7 kilometers from Dianchi Road, Kunming City, Yunnan Province, and Room 2, Building 22. Legal representative: Liu Shaohua, general manager of the company. Entrusted litigation agent: Liu Yangshishu, lawyer of Yunnan Lingyun Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Entrusted litigation agent: Geng Guoping, lawyer of Yunnan Lingyun Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Defendant: Yunnan Geological Engineering Second Survey Institute. Residence: Dashiba, eastern suburb of Kunming City, Yunnan Province. Legal representative: Yu Shiyong, general manager of the company. Entrusted litigation agent: Liu Keping, lawyer of Yunnan Huawei Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Entrusted litigation agent: Tang Xiaoli, lawyer of Yunnan Huawei Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Defendant: Yunnan Development and Construction Supervision Co., Ltd. Residence: No. 326, Huancheng South Road, Kunming City, Yunnan Province. Legal representative: Qian Weiwei, general manager of the company. Entrusted litigation agent: Huang Dezhong, legal worker of CIIC Legal Service Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Appointment of an agent ad litem; Zhou Guojing is a legal worker at CIIC Legal Service Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Defendant: Yunnan Construction Engineering Quality Inspection Station Co., Ltd. Residence: Building 7, Yunnan Ziyun Jade Bird International Jewelry Processing Trade Base, at the intersection of Shuntong Avenue and Yuyuan Road, Kunming Export Processing Zone, Yunnan Province. Legal representative: Li Xincheng, general manager of the company. Entrusted litigation agent: Wu Fan, lawyer of Yunnan Youyuan Law Firm. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. Entrusted litigation agent: Song Jun, male, born on September 30, 1981, living in Kunming City, Yunnan Province, employee of the company. Agent Authority: Specially authorized agent. The plaintiff, Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Radio and Television Company), and the defendants China Railway Construction Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Railway Company), Yunnan Geological Engineering Survey and Design Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Geological Survey Institute), Yunnan Antai Construction Engineering Construction Drawing Design Document Review Center (hereinafter referred to as Antai Center), Yunnan Geological Engineering Second Survey Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Second Survey Institute), Yunnan Development and Construction Supervision Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Supervision Company), In the case of Yunnan Construction Engineering Quality Inspection Station Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the quality inspection station) dispute over the right of recovery, after the case was filed on June 26, 2017, this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law, and tried the case in open court on August 14, 2017 and November 30, 2017. Tang Xiaoli, Liu Yangshishu and Geng Guoping, the entrusted agents ad litem of the defendant Antai Center, Liu Keping and Tang Xiaoli, the entrusted agents ad litem of the defendant Second Investigation Institute, Huang Dezhong and Zhou Guojing, the entrusted agents ad litem of the defendant supervision company, and Wu Fan and Song Jun, the entrusted agents ad litem of the defendant's quality inspection station, attended the court to participate in the litigation. The case is now closed. The Radio and Television Company filed a lawsuit with this court: 1. Divide the proportion of responsibility borne by the six defendants in the process of disposing of the dilapidated house in Baima in accordance with the law;2. Order the six defendants to repay all expenses advanced by the plaintiff in the process of disposing of the dilapidated house in Baima (including rescue expenses, maintenance, relocation, resettlement, compensation, appraisal and other related expenses) temporarily calculated to May 31, 2017 The expenses directly advanced by the plaintiff in the amount of RMB 49,579,861.69 directly paid by the plaintiff until May 31, 2017); The six defendants were ordered to bear the plaintiff's capital occupation fees from the date of advance payment to the date of actual repayment of the money in proportion to their liability (temporarily calculated as of May 31, 2017 with 49,579,861.69 yuan as the principal amount of 16,017,763.36 yuan); 4. The six defendants were ordered to bear the plaintiff's attorney fees of 480,000 yuan incurred by the plaintiff in asserting rights and interests in accordance with the proportion of liability; 5. The six defendants were ordered to bear all the litigation costs of the case (including litigation fees, preservation fees, announcement fees, and judicial appraisal fees). Facts and reasons: In 2011, the plaintiff launched the "Urban Village Reconstruction Project in No. 5 Area of Xishan District" as the construction unit, and in the second half of 2012, China Railway Company, which was responsible for the construction of the foundation pit support project and the designer of the project, occurred during the excavation construction of the deep pit in the adjacent Baima East District due to the impact of the construction, and the houses were subsided, cracked and other phenomena occurred due to the impact of construction, and then identified by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District, Kunming City, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 10 houses are identified as Class D dangerous houses, and the houses need to be immediately stopped and evacuated. After the incident, the Xishan District People's Government activated the emergency plan to immediately evacuate the people, and the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau) organized a number of expert groups to identify and analyze the responsibility for the damage to the houses in the eastern district of Baima, and after the analysis and appraisal of the expert group, and made an expert opinion on November 28, 2015, the expert group believed that the six defendants involved in the construction of the case were at fault for causing the damage to 10 houses in the eastern district of Baima, and in order to ensure the personal and property safety of the damaged residents and social stability, the plaintiff should pay the rescue fee in advance at the request of the people's government of Xishan DistrictThe plaintiff has the right to recover from the responsible party for repair, relocation, resettlement, compensation, appraisal and other related expenses. The plaintiff's litigation claims of 49,579,861.69 yuan are: 1. 30,531,313.21 yuan for the removal and resettlement of 424 households; 2. 950,000 yuan for the cost of the demolition company; 3. 1,187,905.8 yuan for appraisal fees; 4. 538,594.17 yuan for design and surveying and mapping; 5. 464,779.2 yuan for security fees; 6. 195,000 yuan for reconstruction environmental impact assessment; 7. 601,100 yuan for legal services; 8. Case agency fees (lawyer's fees for 8 other cases) are 299,684.4 yuan, 9. Water and electricity expenses are 20,320.5 yuan, 10. Other expenses are 6,761,809.61 yuan, and the above total is 41,550,506.89 yuan. The expenses outside the scope of 424 households were 8,029,354.8 yuan, which were: 1. 2,485,275.24 yuan for damage to the houses of the Daguanlou Police Station, and 2. 5,544,079.56 yuan for other maintenance expenses. The defendant China Railway Company replied: 1. The plaintiff's first claim did not have the benefit of the lawsuit, and the first claim overlapped with the second claim and should be dismissed. The Plaintiff Radio and Television Company used the Expert Advisory Opinion as an important basis for asserting that the defendants should bear the loss costs, and the Expert Advisory Opinion clearly pointed out that the plaintiff Radio and Television Company was at fault in four aspects, namely, the plaintiff failed to apply for a construction permit, the survey report was not reviewed, and the plaintiff was not at fault. The plaintiff requested China Railway Company to continue the construction when the design and construction drawings were not reviewed, and when China Railway Company reported to the plaintiff that the settlement of the surrounding houses exceeded the early warning value, the plaintiff requested China Railway Company to continue the construction, and the plaintiff was seriously at fault in the construction of the project in this case, and bore most of the costs incurred in dealing with the damage to the house. 2. The Expert Advisory Opinion did not have the signature of the expert, similar witness testimony, the expert did not appear in court, the Expert Advisory Opinion did not require China Railway Company to participate in the expression of opinions in the process of making it, and the procedure was flawed. 3. The Ya'an earthquake on April 20, 2013 and the defects of the house itself also had a certain impact on the damage to the house, and the plaintiff shall bear the relevant liability for this part of the cause. 4. The Plaintiff submitted the Housing Safety Appraisal Report issued by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office in Xishan District, Kunming City, claiming that the damaged houses should be demolished, and the appraisal report submitted by China Railway Company from the National Construction Engineering Quality Supervision and Inspection Center (hereinafter referred to as the National Inspection Center Report) clearly stated that the damaged houses only needed to be reinforced and did not need to be demolished. The plaintiff's claim for advance payment was based on the Special Audit Report The audit report was unilaterally commissioned by the plaintiff, the relocation and resettlement fees were included in the scope of the reconstruction and reconstruction project of Baima No. 5 area for the implementation of 10 damaged houses, not because the damage to the houses did reach the level of demolition, and the resettlement period was only a reasonable period for house reinforcement, which was only 115 days, and the plaintiff claimed that the relocation and resettlement fees for 424 households during the period from 2014 to 2016 were not based on sufficient basis, and on April 11, 2013, the Xishan District People's Government required the plaintiff to complete the demolition and reconstruction planning plan for approval before April 20, 2013, and then the Xishan District People's Government issued a reminder letterAs of August 15, 2017, the plaintiff had not completed the work, and the plaintiff was responsible for the expansion of the loss of resettlement costs, and the legal service fees and case agency fees should be borne by the plaintiff, and the audit report should not be used as the basis for the plaintiff's disbursement. The defendant Geological Survey Institute replied that the Radio and Television Company signed the "Construction Project Survey Contract" with the Geological Survey Institute The geological survey institute performed according to the contract without breach of contract, the quality of the survey report submitted by the geological survey institute is qualified, and it should not bear the liability for compensation, the radio and television company began the foundation pit construction in September 2011, March 26, 2012 The settlement of 2 buildings in the Baima community has exceeded the early warning value, and the foundation pit support partially failed on August 8, 2012, and the survey report of the geological survey institute has not passed the review and delivery of construction on November 20, 2012, and the construction drawings (including survey documents) shall not be used without examination and qualification, and the foundation pit support of the radio and television company has failed, resulting in the damage to the surrounding houses of the foundation sinking and the geological survey institute has nothing to do with it, and the geological survey institute should not be liable for compensation。 The defendant Antai Center replied that it was not a qualified defendant in this case, and that it was not the subject of liability for infringement and should not be liable for compensation, and that Antai Center conducted a pre-review of the materials provided by the radio and television company in accordance with the pre-review notice issued by the Yunnan Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and found that there were problems with the materials submitted by the radio and television company, and promptly replied to the radio and television company to revise and supplement them. Before Antai Center issued the first review opinion that the materials submitted by the radio and television company were unqualified, the radio and television company had already carried out the actual construction in July 2011, and the radio and television company had already built the project without examination and approval, and used unreviewed drawings for construction, resulting in the damage to 10 houses in the eastern district of Baima, and the radio and television company was primarily responsible for the occurrence of the accident, and the Antai Center should not be liable for compensation. The defendant Second Investigation Court replied that there was no contractual relationship between the Second Investigation Court and the Radio and Television Company, and the Second Investigation Court was not a qualified defendant in this case and should not be liable for compensation. Radio and television company in September 2011 began to carry out the construction of foundation pit support, on October 11, 2011, the second survey institute submitted the foundation pit support plan through the expert review, the quality is qualified. The damage to 10 houses in Baima East District has nothing to do with the foundation pit support plan of the Second Survey Institute, and the Second Survey Institute should not be liable for compensation. The defendant supervision company replied that the radio and television company clearly divided the proportion of responsibility in the complaint, and that in exercising the right of recovery, the radio and television company did not have the right to recover the litigation conditions, and the litigation claim should be dismissed, and the "Expert Advisory Opinion" was not an authoritative judicial appraisal conclusion and had no legal effect, and when the proportion of fault liability and the various reasons for causing the dilapidated house were not clear, it was not improper for the radio and television company to advance funds as the construction party. Request for dismissal of the litigation claim of the radio and television company. The defendant's quality inspection station replied that the radio and television company was the subject of joint infringement and should bear the main responsibility. In October 2011, the quality inspection station signed a technical service contract with the radio and television company, stipulating that the quality inspection station would provide monitoring data reports to the plaintiff radio and television company, and the quality inspection station would use six monitoring methods for monitoring, and the quality inspection station had provided early warning reports for 9 houses before March 2012, but the radio and television company did not pay attention to it, and the quality inspection station was not at fault for the occurrence of damage and should not be liable for compensation. According to the evidence, cross-examination and trial of both parties, the facts of the case confirmed by this court are as follows: On February 12, 2011, the Radio and Television Company and the Geological Survey Institute signed the Construction Project Survey Contract (1), and the Radio and Television Company entrusted the Geological Survey Institute to undertake the survey task of the No. 5 area reconstruction project of Zhongcun in Xishan District. In April 2011, the Geological Survey Institute issued the "Foundation Pit Special Geotechnical Engineering Survey Report" and the annex, the main content of the survey report suggests: according to the environmental conditions around the foundation pit, the design and construction plan should consider the engineering environment and the impact on the surrounding buildings, the foundation pit excavation is recommended to use the pile + internal support support scheme and deep stirring waterproof curtain joint support, must ensure the safety of the surrounding buildings and road pipelines, pipe networks, etc. On February 27, 2012, the radio and television company and the Geological Survey Institute sent the survey report to the Antai Center for review, and on May 25, 2012, the Antai Center issued the cloud review AT2012-055 (1) "Construction Drawing Design Document Review Report", the review opinion: the survey report basically complies with the relevant regulations after review, and the report still has deficiencies, which can be used for design after supplementation and modification. On November 16, 2012, the radio and television company and the geological survey institute sent the survey report to the Antai Center for review, and on November 20, 2012, the Antai Center issued the cloud review AT2012-055 (2) "Construction Drawing Design Document Review Report", review opinions: the survey report basically complies with the relevant regulations after review, and the report still has deficiencies, which can be used for design after supplementation and modification. On October 15, 2011, the Radio and Television Company and the Supervision Company signed two "Construction Project Entrustment Supervision Contracts", and the Supervision Company entrusted the Supervision Company to supervise the basic engineering, main engineering, roofing engineering, hydropower, fire protection engineering, and installation engineering within the scope shown in the design drawings of the project. On October 11, 2011, the Radio and Television Company signed the "Technical Service Contract" with the Quality Inspection Station, and the Radio and Television Company entrusted the Quality Inspection Station to provide special technical services for the foundation pit support project and the settlement monitoring of the upper main structure in the No. 5 area of Zhongcun in Xishan District. On November 3, 2011, the Radio and Television Company and China Railway Corporation signed the "Construction General Contracting Contract", and the Radio and Television Company awarded the reconstruction project of No. 5 Area of Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, Kunming City, Yunnan Province to China Railway Corporation for construction. On June 6, 2016, the Second Survey Institute sent a letter to the Radio and Television Company, which read: "As a design unit, our institute is entrusted by China Railway Corporation to undertake the construction drawing design of the foundation pit support scheme in the No. 5 area of Zhongcun in Xishan District". In 2012, the radio and television company started the construction of the "Xishan District No. 5 Area Village Reconstruction Project", which was contracted by China Railway Corporation, the Geological Survey Institute was the foundation pit support engineering survey, and the Antai Center was the pre-review unit of the construction documents (including the survey report), and the construction drawing design of the deep foundation pit support project was entrusted by China Railway Company to the Second Survey Institute to be responsible for the design, and the supervision company supervised the construction of the project, and the quality inspection station monitored the settlement of the foundation pit support project and the upper main structure, and the above participating units were the plaintiffs and six defendants in this case. In 2012, during the construction of the foundation pit of China Railway Company, the adjacent office building of Daguan Police Station and 10 houses in Baima East District, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12, were damaged by foundation sinking and cracking, and at the same time, 8 households including 25, 26 and 37 in the surrounding Baima East District were partially damaged. On February 1, 2013, the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District, Kunming City, issued a notice to the Radio and Television Company, requesting the evacuation of residents of Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 in the eastern district of Baima and the office building of the Daguan Police Station as soon as possible. On November 2, 2012, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau "Minutes of the Work Conference on the Promotion of Housing Safety around the No. 5 Urban Village Reconstruction Area and Foundation Pit". After that, after the application of the radio and television company, on April 26, 2013, the housing safety appraisal office of Xishan District, Kunming City, identified the safety of the damaged houses, and issued the "Housing Safety Appraisal Report" respectively, and the appraisal conclusion was: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 houses were greatly affected by the foundation pit construction of No. 5 area of Zhongcun in Xishan District, and belonged to Class D dangerous houses. It is recommended to stop using it immediately and evacuate people. In October 2015, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau in accordance with the requirements of the notice of the Yunnan Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, organized experts to analyze and study the causes of housing damage in Baima East District and the problems existing in the participating units. The damage to the house, such as tilting, was caused by the deep foundation pit excavation construction of the No. 5 area reconstruction project of Chengzhong Village in Xishan District, which was carried out by the Radio and Television Company. 2. During the excavation of the deep foundation pit of the No. 5 area reconstruction project of Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, the failure of part of the water interception curtain in the foundation pit (causing the loss of groundwater in the permeable layer such as a large amount of fine sand and round gravel and gravel on the foundation pit wall), and the failure of the local support structure (the fracture of some support piles, the decline of the anchor force of some anchor cables, and the failure of anchor cable anchorage) are the main reasons for the damage caused by foundation settlement, cracking, and house tilting of 10 houses in Baima East District around the foundation pit. 2. Problems existing in the construction units of deep foundation pit engineering: Geological Survey Institute as a foundation pit support engineering survey unit: (1) The survey is not in accordance with the "Geotechnical Engineering Survey Specification" (GB50021-2001), "Building Foundation Pit Support Technical Regulations" (JGJ-2012), "Construction Engineering Geological Exploration and Sampling Technical Regulations" (JGJ/T87-2012) and other specifications and regulations, for the foundation pit to carry out effective and detailed special exploration work. The number of samples is insufficient, the physical and mechanical properties of the compressed layer soil in the foundation pit site are not sampled, and the physical and mechanical properties test of the compressed layer soil in the foundation pit site are not carried out. The proposed parameters of the physical and mechanical properties of the corresponding soil layer are not sufficient. (2) The investigation of the surrounding environment such as the foundation form and buried depth of the surrounding buildings and structures of the foundation pit is insufficient. (3) The pre-examination opinions of the foundation pit investigation report and the supplementary investigation report have not been substantially responded to and replied. Antai Center, as the pre-review unit of the survey report: there are problems in the tracking, implementation and control of the reply of the survey unit on the pre-review of the survey report. After the survey unit did not make a substantive response and reply to the pre-review of the foundation pit survey report and the supplementary survey report, it did not carry out effective control and control. As the construction drawing design unit of the foundation pit support project, the Second Survey Institute (1) provided two different construction drawings of the supporting structure at the same time, one of the supporting structures is "row pile + inner anchor section reaming pressure dispersion anchor cable + local gusset", and the other supporting structure is "row pile + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset". Among them, the construction drawings submitted to the construction drawing review unit (Antai Center) are "row piles + inner anchor section reaming pressure dispersed anchor cable + local gusset", while the construction drawings handed over to the construction unit and the construction unit (China Railway Company) are "row piles + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset". In the actual construction, the construction unit shall carry out the construction according to the construction drawing of "row pile + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset" that has not been reviewed by the construction drawing review unit. (2) The design unit did not carry out the work in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau's "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) that "construction must be carried out in strict accordance with the requirements of the reviewed deep foundation pit design documents, construction plans and relevant technical specifications and standards". (3) There is no foundation pit excavation diagram in the design document, and the foundation pit support design basis is not sufficient. (4) In the foundation pit support construction drawings submitted by the design unit, the special requirements for the verticality of the water-stopping pile of the water interception curtain are not clearly marked. According to the design and construction drawings and the current construction drawing specifications, the forking of the long spiral stirring waterproof curtain occlusion pile (the long spiral stirring pile and the supporting pile occlusion form a waterproof curtain) is difficult to avoid. In fact, if the water interception curtain of this foundation pit project is to be successful, the verticality of the waterstop pile needs to be higher than the relevant national specifications. (5) The major design changes involving the safety of foundation pit engineering, such as "foundation pit seepage control and water-stopping structure reinforcement", "foundation pit yang angle reinforcement", "support pile fracture and disposal", which should have been presided over by the design unit, were completed by the construction unit, which did not meet the requirements of the national capital construction procedure management regulations. Supervision company: (1) The supervision company did not carry out supervision work according to the construction drawings. After receiving the construction drawings reviewed by the construction drawing review unit (Antai Center), the construction unit, the design unit and the construction unit were still ignored after the construction of the unreviewed "row pile + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset" construction drawings, and only marked on the drawings received, and failed to report to the construction administrative department and relevant departments of the project in a timely manner that the construction unit, the design unit and the construction unit did not carry out construction according to the reviewed construction drawings. (2) The supervision company failed to effectively supervise the construction unit to carry out the construction according to the design documents (including drawings) approved by the review; failed to effectively supervise the construction unit and the third-party testing unit to carry out comprehensive construction monitoring in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Specifications for Monitoring of Building Foundation Pit Engineering (GB50497-2009), and failed to effectively supervise the construction unit and the third party to monitor the groundwater level of the foundation pit and the horizontal displacement of the deep soil. The foundation pit is adjacent to important buildings (subways) and pipelines to carry out monitoring, and the construction unit is not effectively urged to set up recharge on the outside of the foundation pit excavation line to control the groundwater level balance. (3) in August 2012 found that there is a local failure of the foundation pit support, only to the construction unit issued a memorandum on the supervision of the existence of local failure of the foundation pit, in the case of the construction unit without any feedback, do not make effective and decisive decisions, and do not report the behavior of the construction unit to the construction administrative department and relevant departments of the project in a timely manner. (4) the supervision company is not in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development "on further strengthening the construction management of deep foundation pit engineering notice" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) document stipulates that "must be based on the specification, survey report, review opinions, design plan, construction plan and other relevant information documents, combined with the characteristics of deep foundation pit engineering, the development of targeted supervision implementation rules, clear key processes and important parts, to achieve 100% side station, the surrounding environment deformation of the allowable value, early warning value issued an early warning notice, the release rate, The items that need to be inspected and tested as stipulated by regulations, norms and standards must be tracked, supervised and inspected, relevant records must be made, and rectification notices must be issued in a timely manner when problems are found. That is, the supervision unit did not fully and thoroughly perform the duties of the project site supervision, and failed to achieve 100% side station for key processes such as mud preparation and anchor cable hole formation with the support pile of the supporting pile in December 2012, and the local backpressure backfill of the foundation pit. (5) the supervision company is not in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development "on further strengthening the construction management of deep foundation pit projects" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) document stipulates that "the supervision unit must timely grasp the monitoring data, deep foundation pit engineering in danger or accidents, must immediately report to the local construction administrative departments and relevant departments" to carry out work. After the construction of the deep foundation pit of the No. 5 reconstruction project in Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, caused the foundation settlement, cracking and tilting of 10 houses in Baima East District, the supervision company did not immediately report to the construction administrative department and relevant departments of the project. (6) The supervision unit's records on the concealed project are chaotic and inconsistent with the construction unit. (7) In 2011, the excavation of the deep foundation pit of the No. 5 area reconstruction project in Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, caused damage to the office of the surrounding police station, and in August 2012, it was found that there was a partial failure of the foundation pit, and after the foundation pit support pile was broken in December 2012, no decisive measures were taken, and a stop-work order was not issued in time; China Railway Company, as the construction unit: (1) Before construction, the investigation of the surrounding environment of the foundation pit (including surrounding buildings and underground pipe network) was not comprehensive and thorough, and the preparation for the impact of foundation pit excavation and support on the surrounding buildings (including surrounding buildings and underground pipe network) was insufficient. (2) The construction unit did not carry out effective construction in accordance with the "Construction Organization Design" and the "Safety Special Construction Plan" in the foundation pit excavation and support measures, that is, the construction unit did not set up a recharge well on the outside of the foundation pit excavation line in time to control the groundwater level balance. (3) The construction unit did not carry out the work in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau's "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) that "construction must be carried out in strict accordance with the requirements of the reviewed deep foundation pit design documents, construction plans and relevant technical specifications and standards". (4) The construction unit did not carry out the work in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau's "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) that "major survey and design and construction plan changes involved in the construction process must be reported to the construction unit to reorganize the expert review, and the review opinions and revised plans must be reported to the safety supervision department for the record", and the construction unit still follows the original "pile row +" construction drawing after receiving the "pile row + ordinary tensile anchor cable + local gusset". The construction organization design and safety special construction plan of the inner anchor section reaming pressure dispersed anchor cable + local gusset were carried out, resulting in the construction basis of the anchor cable being inconsistent with the on-site acceptance; (5) The construction unit knew that according to the design and construction drawings and the current construction technical specifications, the long spiral stirring waterproof curtain occlusion pile (the long spiral stirring pile and the supporting pile occlusion formed a waterproof curtain) split is difficult to avoid, and there may be a partial failure of the foundation pit water-stopping curtain, and no measures should be taken. (6) The acceptance record of the concealed project of the construction unit is chaotic and inconsistent with the supervision unit. (7) The construction unit is not in accordance with the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) document stipulates that "it is necessary to formulate an emergency plan to prevent the collapse of deep foundation pit accidents, and when the collapse of deep foundation pit excavation and enclosure engineering occurs or seriously threatens the safety of surrounding facilities and buildings, it is necessary to immediately start the emergency plan. The supervision unit must take prompt measures to control the development of the situation, prevent secondary accidents, and immediately report to the local construction administrative departments and relevant departments, and it is strictly forbidden to delay or conceal the work of "carrying out the work. In 2011, the excavation of the deep foundation pit of the No. 5 area reconstruction project in the urban village of Xishan District led to damage to the offices of the surrounding police stations, the fracture of the foundation pit support pile in December 2012, and the large-scale foundation settlement, cracking, and house tilting of 10 houses in the eastern district of Baima from February to April 2013. As a third-party monitoring unit, the quality inspection station does not carry out comprehensive third-party monitoring work in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Specifications for the Testing of Building Foundation Pit Engineering (GB50497-2009) and the third-party monitoring contract signed with the construction unit. That is, third-party monitoring was not carried out in a timely manner in 2011, but only began in March 2011. (2) Failure to carry out comprehensive third-party monitoring in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Specifications for Testing of Building Foundation Pit Engineering (GB50497-2009). In the case that the monitoring report shows that the tensile force of the anchor cable of the foundation pit support structure continues to decline sharply, no warning documents and reminder materials are provided to the construction unit and other participating units. As the construction unit, the Radio and Television Company (1) was built before the trial. The construction of supporting piles began on September 20, 2011, and 84 waterproof piles have been constructed from September 17 to September 23, 2011, and the design and construction drawings of foundation pit support have only passed the review on October 10, 2011. (2) The design unit provided two different construction drawings of the supporting structure, and the management personnel of the construction unit did not find and stop the construction unit from carrying out construction according to the unreviewed construction drawings. (3) Failure to strictly perform the contract, resulting in the third-party monitoring unit arbitrarily arranging the start time of the third-party safety monitoring of the foundation pit, resulting in a serious lag in the third-party monitoring work. (4) In August 2012, after receiving the supervision memorandum of the supervision unit on the existence of local instability in the foundation pit, no reply was given, regardless of the safety of the project. The construction unit did not follow the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development's "Notice on Further Strengthening the Construction Management of Deep Foundation Pit Engineering" (Kunming Jian [2010] No. 20) document stipulating that "it is necessary to formulate an emergency plan to prevent deep foundation pit collapse accidents." In the event of a deep foundation pit excavation enclosure engineering collapse accident or a serious threat to the safety of surrounding facilities and buildings, the emergency plan should be started immediately, and the construction, construction and supervision units must take prompt measures to control the development of the situation and prevent secondary accidents, and immediately report to the local construction administrative departments and relevant departments, and it is strictly forbidden to delay or conceal the work "to carry out the work. In 2011, the construction unit proposed that the deep foundation pit excavation construction of the No. 5 area reconstruction project in Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, led to damage to the surrounding police station office, and the recharge wells around the foundation pit could not be constructed, and the foundation pit support pile was broken in December 2012, and the deep foundation pit excavation construction in March and April 2013 led to the foundation settlement, cracking, house tilting and other major dangers of 10 houses in Baima East District, and the construction unit did not immediately report to the construction administrative department and relevant departments of the project. On September 17, 2013, the Radio and Television Company obtained the Construction Permit for Construction Projects. The audit report is as follows: 1. 1. The relocation and resettlement fee of 424 households is 30,531,313.21 yuan; 2. The fee for the demolition company is 950,000 yuan; 3. The appraisal fee is 1,187,905.8 yuan; 4. The design and surveying and mapping fee is 538,594.17 yuan; 5. The security fee is 464,779.2 yuan; 6. The environmental impact assessment fee for reconstruction is 195,000 yuan; 7. The special legal service fee is 601,100 yuan, 8. the case agency fee (the lawyer's fee for 8 other cases) is 299,684.4 yuan, 9, the water and electricity fee is 20,320.5 yuan, and 10. other expenses (rent and house maintenance fee) are 6,761,809.61 yuan, and the total amount of the above is 41,550,506.89. 2. The expenditure outside the scope of the 424 households was 8,029,354.8 yuan, of which 2,485,275.24 yuan was spent on damage to the house of the Daguanlou police station, and 5,544,079.56 yuan was spent on other maintenance expenses; Combined with the arguments of both the defendant and the defense, the key issues in dispute in this case are: 1) the cause of the damage to the house involved in the case, 2) the consequences of the damage, 3) whether the six defendants are at fault and whether they should bear the corresponding liability for compensation, and 4) the expenses paid by the radio and television company. 1. With regard to the cause of the damage to the house involved in the case, this court held that this case was a dispute over the right of recovery arising from infringement, and the Radio and Television Company asserted that the six defendants should bear the expenses they had paid in advance in the disposal of the dilapidated house in Baima in proportion to their liability, and tried this case on the premise of the four constitutive elements according to the constitutive elements of the general tort: the existence of the harmful act, the existence of the fact of damage, the causal relationship between the harmful act and the fact of the damage, and the subjective fault of the actor. The No. 5 area renovation project in Zhongcun, Xishan District, developed and constructed by the Radio and Television Company involved in the case, was contracted by China Railway Company, the Geological Survey Institute surveyed the foundation pit support project, the Antai Center was the pre-review of the survey report, the quality inspection station monitored the foundation pit support project and the settlement of the upper main structure, the supervision company supervised the construction of the project, and the Second Survey Institute was entrusted by China Railway Company to design the construction drawings of the deep foundation pit support project, and the above participating units were the plaintiffs and six defendants in this case. On September 20, 2011, the radio and television company started the construction of the urban village reconstruction project in the No. 5 area of Xishan District, in 2012, during the construction of the deep foundation pit of China Railway Company, the adjacent Daguan police station office buildings and other surrounding areas were damaged, on April 20, 2013, April 21, 2013, 10 houses in the adjacent Baima East District, Xishan District, were damaged by foundation settlement, cracking, and house tilting, and in October 2015, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau in accordance with the Yunnan Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, The notice of the Kunming Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban-Rural Development requires that experts be organized to analyze and study the causes of the damage to the houses in Baima East District and the problems existing in the participating units, and the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau twice notified the plaintiff and the six defendants in writing to submit relevant information within the specified time, and the expert group carefully reviewed and analyzed the information submitted by the plaintiff and the six defendants, and formed an "Expert Advisory Opinion" on November 28, 2015, clarifying that 10 houses in Baima East District, Xishan District, had foundation settlement, cracking, The damage to the house tilt is caused by the deep foundation pit excavation construction of the No. 5 area reconstruction project of Chengzhong Village in Xishan District, developed and constructed by the Radio and Television Company, and the failure of part of the water interception curtain in the foundation pit and the failure of the local supporting structure. Based on the application of the Radio and Television Company, this court obtained the "Expert Advisory Opinion" signed by the experts from the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau, and conducted cross-examination, and the expert consultation opinion was lawful in procedure, objective and fair in content, and the expert advisory opinion was accepted by this court as to the cause of the damage to the house. 2. With regard to the consequences of the damage, this court held that in 2012, during the construction of the foundation pit of China Railway Company, the adjacent office building of the Daguan Police Station and 10 houses in Baima East District, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, were damaged by foundation subsidence and cracking, and at the same time, 8 households including buildings 25, 26, and 37 in the surrounding Baima East District were partially damaged. On November 2, 2012, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau issued the "Minutes of the Work Conference on the Promotion of Housing Safety around the No. 5 Urban Village Reconstruction Area and Foundation Pit", and the participants of the meeting included the staff of the Palm Shuying Sub-district Office of the Xishan District People's Government, and the representatives of the damaged households. Subsequently, upon the application of the radio and television company, on April 26, 2013, the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District, Kunming City, conducted an appraisal of the safety of the damaged houses, and issued a "Housing Safety Appraisal Report", and the appraisal conclusion was: "10 houses in Baima East District, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, were greatly affected by the foundation pit construction in the No. 5 area of Chengzhong Village, Xishan District, Xishan District, and were Class D dangerous houses. It is recommended to stop using it immediately and evacuate people". On April 27, 2013, the People's Government of Xishan District held a press conference to inform that 10 houses were Class D dangerous houses, stopped using them, and evacuated people. On March 2, 2017, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau issued the "Reply to the Work Contact Letter of the Radio and Television Company", which clarified that "the appraisal of dilapidated houses issued by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District of Kunming City on April 20, 2013 is legal and valid", and the minutes of the special meeting of the People's Government of Yunnan Province on March 21, 2017 made it clear that the housing safety appraisal report issued by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office of Xishan District is legal and valid, and conforms to the Regulations on the Management of Urban Dangerous Houses issued by the Ministry of Construction The requirements are the basis for solving the reconstruction of dilapidated houses in the eastern district of Baima. On August 18, 2016, the Xishan District People's Government held a special meeting minutes, which were attended by the plaintiff and the six defendants in this case, and in the formation of the "Minutes of the Special Coordination Meeting", it was clear that the reconstruction and reconstruction plan led by the construction unit radio and television company was as it was, and the other units participating in the meeting unanimously agreed to the reconstruction plan as it was", and the plaintiffs and the six defendants in this case signed and confirmed on the meeting minutes. To sum up, according to Article 6 of the Ministry of Construction's "Regulations on the Management of Urban Dilapidated Houses", "the real estate administrative departments of the municipal and county people's governments shall set up a housing safety appraisal agency to be responsible for the safety appraisal of the house, and uniformly use the special seal for housing safety appraisal". The appraisal and management of dangerous houses belongs to the administrative functions of the administrative organs, the housing safety appraisal office of Xishan District, Kunming City, the appraisal opinions of the D-level dangerous houses made on the safety of damaged houses, according to the tenth article of the "Dangerous Housing Safety Appraisal Standards", the D-level dangerous houses are the whole dangerous houses, and the load-bearing structure load can not meet the requirements of normal use, and the overall danger of the house must be stopped immediately. The appraisal procedures made by the Housing Safety Appraisal Office in Xishan District, Kunming City are legal, objective and fair, and this court accepts them. China Railway Company believes that there is a contradiction between the appraisal opinion of the Housing Safety Appraisal Office in Xishan District, Kunming City and the appraisal report of the National Inspection Center, which clearly states that the 10 houses involved in the case do not need to be demolished, but only need to be repaired and reinforced, and applied to this court to appraise the extent and safety of the damage to the 10 houses. Second, on August 18, 2016, the Xishan District People's Government organized the five defendants in this case (Antai Center did not participate) to attend the meeting, and the meeting agreed that the Radio and Television Company, on behalf of the six defendants, would sign the "Agreement on the Reconstruction and Resettlement of Dangerous Houses" with 424 households In September 2016, the Radio and Television Company signed the Agreement on the Reconstruction and Resettlement of Dangerous Houses with 411 of the 424 damaged households, and the Palmshuying Sub-district Office of the Xishan District People's Government signed and sealed the agreement as the supervisory party, and since April 2013, the damaged households have moved out of their original addresses; China Railway Company argued that the cause of the damage to the house did not exclude the existence of quality problems in the house itself and the impact of the earthquake in Ya'an, Sichuan Province on April 20, 2013, but there was no evidence to substantiate this, and the evidence of the relevance of the safety and damage of the damaged house to the litigation claim of the Radio and Television Company was insufficient, and the court did not approve the appraisal application (China Railway Company had been informed in writing on October 26, 2017). According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, "in the event that evidence may be destroyed or difficult to obtain in the future, the parties may apply to the people's court for evidence preservation during the course of litigation, and the people's court may also take the initiative to take preservation measures" China Railway's application does not fall within the scope of evidence preservation under the law, and its application will not be approved (China Railway Corporation has been notified in writing on November 9, 2017). In summary, the evidence of the defense put forward by China Railway Company is insufficient, and this court will not accept it. 3. On the issue of whether the six defendants are at fault and whether they should bear corresponding liability, this court holds that Article 6 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China reads: "If the actor infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others due to his fault, he shall bear tort liability, and if the actor is presumed to be at fault in accordance with the provisions of the law, and if the actor cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability" and "Article 12:" Where two or more persons separately commit tortious acts and cause the same harmful consequences, and the size of the liability can be determined, each of them shall bear the corresponding liability, and if it is difficult to determine the size of the liability, they shall bear equal liability for compensation" and Article 26: "The infringed party is also at fault for the occurrence of the damage, and the liability of the infringer may be reduced". In this case, as mentioned above, the Expert Advisory Opinion dated November 28, 2015 clarified the problems existing in the participating units, and whether the six defendants were at fault should be determined in conjunction with the evidence in the case. It is the obligation of the surveyor to carry out the engineering survey according to the regulations, the employer's task power of attorney and technical requirements, and to provide qualified survey results and materials within the specified time, and to be responsible for them. In this case, the Radio and Television Company and the Geological Survey Institute signed the Construction Project Survey Contract, stipulating that the Geological Survey Institute should assess the possible adverse effects of the buildings and environment at or near the survey site, propose reasonable measures to reduce or avoid the defects, and submit them to the employer for evaluation. The survey report and supplementary survey report issued by the geological survey institute are complete, the survey report on the environmental conditions, design and construction plan around the foundation pit should consider the impact of the engineering environment and the surrounding buildings, and the foundation pit excavation is recommended to use the pile + inner support support scheme and the joint support of the deep stirring waterproof curtain to ensure that the surrounding buildings and road pipelines, The safety of the pipe network is clear, and it is required to pay attention to it, but before the survey report of the Geological Survey Institute is reviewed, the radio and television company has begun the foundation pit construction, and the foundation pit support fails during the construction process, resulting in the damage to the surrounding houses due to the foundation sinking has nothing to do with the survey report of the Geological Survey Institute, and the Geological Survey Institute should not be liable for compensation. Second, on the issue of whether Antai Center is at fault and whether it should bear the corresponding liability for compensation, this court believes that Article 11 of the Regulations on Quality Management of Construction Projects of the State Council states: "The construction unit shall submit the construction drawing design documents to the construction administrative department or other relevant departments of the people's government at or above the county level for review. Construction drawing design documents without review and approval, shall not be used". In this case, Antai Center, as the pre-review unit of the survey report (construction drawing), twice issued the Yunshi Review AT2012-055 (1) (2) "Construction Drawing Design Document Review Report" to the Radio and Television Company, and the review opinion was: "The survey report basically complies with the relevant regulations after review, and the report still has deficiencies, and can be used for design after supplementation and modification". If the survey report submitted by the radio and television company was not approved by the Antai Center, and the radio and television company was required to supplement and revise it and then make it available for design use, but the radio and television company did not reply, and the construction drawing design documents were not reviewed and approved, the radio and television company used the drawings that had not been reviewed and approved for construction, and the Antai Center was not at fault and should not be liable for compensation for the damage caused. Third, on the issue of whether the Second Survey Institute is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation, this court believes that Article 52 of the Construction Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "the quality of survey, design and construction of construction projects must meet the requirements of the relevant national safety standards for construction projects". In this case, the Second Survey Institute, as the construction drawing design unit of the foundation pit support project, must meet the relevant national safety standards for the design of the construction drawings is its legal obligation, and the Second Survey Institute provided two different construction drawings of the supporting structure at the same time, of which the construction drawings submitted to the construction drawing review unit (Antai Center) are one set, and the construction drawings submitted to the construction unit and the construction unit (China Railway Company) are another set. There is no foundation pit excavation diagram in the design document, and the foundation pit payment design is not sufficient. The Second Survey Institute was unable to submit evidence to prove why two different construction drawings of the supporting structures were provided at the same time. At the same time, the Second Survey Institute should have presided over by the design unit of the "foundation pit seepage control and water-stopping structure reinforcement", "foundation pit sunny corner reinforcement", "support pile fracture and disposal" and other major design changes involving the safety of the foundation pit engineering, to the construction unit to complete the design, does not meet the requirements of the national capital construction procedure management regulations, the second survey institute is at fault for the occurrence of damage consequences, should bear the corresponding liability for compensation. Fourth, on the issue of whether the supervision company is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation, this court believes that Article 35 of the Construction Law of the People's Republic of China: "The project supervision unit does not perform the supervision obligations in accordance with the provisions of the entrusted supervision contract, and shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation if the project that should be supervised and inspected or does not inspect in accordance with the provisions and causes losses to the construction unit". The supervision company shall be strictly based on the approved construction drawings for supervision is its legal obligation. The "Expert Advisory Opinions" made it clear that the supervision did not carry out the supervision work according to the construction drawings, and found that the construction unit, the design unit and the construction unit carried out the construction according to the unreviewed construction drawings, and only marked on the drawings received, and did not report to the construction administrative department in a timely manner. In August 2012 found that there is a local failure of the foundation pit support, only to the construction unit issued a memorandum on the supervision of the existence of local failure of the foundation pit, in the case of the construction unit without any feedback, do not make effective and decisive decisions, did not report to the construction administrative department in a timely manner, and did not issue a stoppage order in a timely manner, the supervision company is at fault for the occurrence of damage consequences, and should bear the corresponding liability for compensation. Fifth, on the issue of whether China Railway Corporation is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation, this court holds that Article 5 of the Construction Law of the People's Republic of China: "Engaging in construction activities shall abide by laws and regulations, and shall not harm the public interest and the legitimate rights and interests of others" and Article 39: "Construction enterprises shall take measures to maintain safety, prevent dangers, and prevent fires at the construction site; If the construction site may cause damage to the adjacent buildings, structures and special working environment, the construction enterprise shall adopt safety protection measures" and Article 28 of the Regulations on the Administration of Work Safety in Construction Projects: "The construction unit must construct in accordance with the engineering design drawings and construction technical standards, and shall not modify the engineering design without authorization and shall not cut corners." If the construction unit finds that there are errors in the design documents and drawings during the construction process, it shall put forward opinions and suggestions in a timely manner". China Railway Company, as the construction unit, to ensure the stability and safety of the buildings around the foundation pit it it is its legal obligation, it knows that the construction unit has not obtained a construction permit but still starts construction, using unapproved drawings for construction, "expert advisory opinion", clear China Railway Company, as the construction unit of deep foundation pit excavation, excavation in the foundation pit, Insufficient preparation for the impact of support on the surrounding structures, partial water interception curtain failure in the foundation pit, failure of local support structure, failure to set up recharge wells on the outside of the excavation line of the foundation pit in time to control the balance of groundwater level, resulting in the occurrence of damage consequences, China Railway Company is at fault and should bear secondary liability for compensation. China Railway Company believes that after the settlement of the Daguan Police Station reached the early warning value, it sent letters to the Radio and Television Company twice requesting that the work be stopped, but the Radio and Television Company replied to the letter to continue the construction, and promised that all the responsibility would be borne by the Radio and Television Company, and that China Railway Company should not be liable for compensation. This court held that the content of the "Work Contact Letter" submitted by China Railway Company on November 30, 2011 from the Radio and Television Company to China Railway Company: "Regarding the matter proposed by your department to take emergency measures such as suspending work at the west side of the police station, the reply is as follows: the construction of support piles and water-stopping piles will continue to be carried out in this part, and our company will be responsible for any problems" and the content of the "Work Contact Letter" dated December 17, 2011, "Reply on the settlement of the police station, the work of this part will continue to be constructed". The two "Work Contact Letters" had the signature of "Chen Changrun", the project manager of the radio and television company, and the seal of the "project management department of the radio and television company", and the radio and television company did not recognize the authenticity of the two "work contact letters", and applied for an appraisal of Chen Changrun's signature and the seal of the project management department, and after the trial, the radio and television company withdrew the appraisal application on December 25, 2017 on the grounds that the signatures and seals were difficult to sample, and the radio and television company should bear the legal consequences of failing to produce evidence, so the two "work contact letters" were accepted by this court. It is proved that after the settlement of the office building of the Daguan Police Station at the beginning of the construction, China Railway Company sent a letter to the Radio and Television Company requesting that the work be stopped, but the Radio and Television Company replied to the letter and promised that all the responsibilities would be borne by the Radio and Television Company, so the Radio and Television Company should bear the main responsibility for the occurrence of the damage consequences. China Railway Company, as the construction party, knew the danger of continuing the construction after the settlement reached the early warning value, and did not report to the relevant departments when the radio and television company did not agree to stop the work in the reply letter, but still continued the construction, until December 3, 2012 and April 19, 2013, the Xishan District Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau issued two suspension notices to China Railway Company, and China Railway Company stopped construction, so China Railway Company should bear secondary responsibility for the occurrence of damage consequences. Sixth, on the issue of whether the quality inspection station is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation, this court believes that on October 11, 2011, the Radio and Television Company signed the "Technical Service Contract" with the quality inspection station As a third-party monitoring unit, the purpose of monitoring is to provide warning material data for the radio and television company, from the monitoring report of the quality inspection station, on October 20, 2011, the quality inspection station uses six monitoring means to monitor, and on November 9, 2011, the settlement of the Daguan police station reached the alarm value, after that, other houses have reached the alarm value, and the quality inspection station has provided data to the radio and television company in a timely manner, and the radio and television company recognized in court the receipt of the test report of the quality inspection station, and the quality inspection station has fulfilled the obligation to monitor and provide warning material dataThe quality inspection station is not at fault for the occurrence of damage consequences and shall not be liable for compensation. Seventh, on the issue of whether the radio and television company is at fault and whether it should bear the liability for compensation, this court holds that Article 7 of the Construction Law of the People's Republic of China: "Before the commencement of a construction project, the construction unit shall, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state, apply to the construction administrative department of the people's government at or above the county level where the project is located to obtain a construction permit" and Article 11 of the Ministry of Construction's "Regulations on the Quality Management of Construction Projects": " The construction unit shall submit the construction drawing design documents to the construction administrative department or other relevant departments of the people's government at or above the county level for review. Construction drawing design documents without review and approval, shall not be used". In this case, first, the Radio and Television Company, as the construction party, requested the construction party to start construction without obtaining a construction permit, and the Radio and Television Company demanded that the six defendants bear proportional liability for compensation on the basis of the Expert Advisory Opinion. It is clear that the radio and television company, as the construction party, has not been reviewed and approved, and the construction of the supporting pile was started on September 20, 2011, and 84 waterproof piles have been constructed from September 17 to September 23, 2011, and the foundation pit support design and construction drawings have only passed the review on October 10, 2011. In the case of the settlement of the office building of the Daguan Police Station during the construction process, China Railway Company sent a letter to the Radio and Television Company requesting that the work be stopped, but the Radio and Television Company replied to continue the construction and promised that all responsibilities would be borne by the Radio and Television Company, so the Radio and Television Company should bear the main responsibility for the occurrence of the damage consequences, and the Radio and Television Company asserted that it should bear administrative liability, not civil liability。 According to Article 4 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, "the infringer shall bear administrative liability or criminal liability for the same act, which does not affect the tort liability in accordance with the law", so the radio and television company shall bear the corresponding civil liability in accordance with the law. In summary, the Radio and Television Company's claim that the Second Survey Institute, the Supervision Company, and the China Railway Company should bear responsibility has a corresponding factual basis, and this court supports it, and its request for the Geological Survey Institute, Antai Center, and Quality Inspection Station to bear the liability for compensation is not sufficient and this court does not support it. According to Article 12 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that "if two or more persons separately commit tortious acts and cause the same damage consequence, and the extent of liability can be determined, each of them shall bear the corresponding liability, and if it is difficult to determine the size of the liability, they shall bear equal liability for compensation" and Article 26: "The infringed party is also at fault for the occurrence of the damage, and the liability of the infringer may be reduced", the radio and television company in this case is also an infringer and is also at fault for the occurrence of the damage consequences, and the infringer's liability for compensation can be reduced. In this case, based on the degree of fault of the plaintiff and the defendant, the consequences of the damage, and the causal relationship between the degree of fault and the consequences of the damage, this court determined as follows: the Second Investigation Institute bears 5% of the liability, the supervision company bears 10% of the liability, the China Railway Company bears 25% of the liability, and the Radio and Television Company bears 60% of the liability. The radio and television company's application for an appraisal of the proportion of the six defendants' responsibility was not approved by this court. 4. On the issue of the expenses advanced by the Radio and Television Company, this court held that the Radio and Television Company claimed that it had advanced the expenses in the process of disposing of the dilapidated houses in Baima, and submitted the audit report of the Kunming Branch of ShineWing Certified Public Accountants, and that the items and expenses contained in the audit report should be comprehensively determined in light of the evidence in the case, and this court commented as follows: First, the household moved out and resettled 30,531,313.21 yuan (including 23,351,583.37 yuan for excessive resettlement, 4,766,119.84 yuan for excessive renting, and Living allowance of 1,931,000 yuan, moving expenses of 299105 yuan, accommodation fee 183505 yuan), 424 households with damaged houses, of which 411 households signed the "Dangerous Housing Reconstruction and Resettlement Agreement" with the radio and television company, and the expenses are confirmed by evidence such as assessment reports and "receipts" issued by 411 households, and at the same time, on September 2, 2015, the Xishan District People's Government requested instructions from the Kunming Municipal People's Government [2015] 79 document in the Xizheng Request [2015] 79 document, which clearly stated: " Up to now, our district has cooperated with the radio and television company to evacuate and move out of 338 households, signed compensation and resettlement agreements for 328 households, and paid a total of 35 million yuan for maintenance and excessive resettlement. CRC argued that in April 2013, the Xishan District People's Government requested the Radio and Television Company to demolish and rebuild the damaged houses, and that if the Radio and Television Company had carried out this work at that time, one year would have been enough time to complete the reconstruction of the houses, and that the excessive resettlement and rental fees from April 2014 onwards would have been borne by the Radio and Television Company. This court held that although the 10 houses involved in the case were determined to be Class D dilapidated houses in April 2014 and must be demolished and rebuilt, the residents moved out from 2014 to 2016 under the leadership of the Xishan District People's Government, until September 2016, when the Radio and Television Company signed the "Dangerous Housing Reconstruction and Resettlement Agreement" with 411 of the 424 households whose houses were damaged On August 18, 2016, the Xishan District People's Government special "Meeting Minutes" required the radio and television company to complete the approval of the reconstruction plan before August 30, 2016, so the relevant work involving the damage to the house was carried out by the radio and television company, and the reasonable period of the reconstruction work was until May 2017, and the excessive resettlement fee after May 2017, Second, China Railway Company argued that the damaged households should be resettled according to the area of the house ownership certificate, not according to the measured area of the house. This court held that on September 7, 2016, the Xishan District People's Government convened the "Notification and Coordination Meeting on Work Related to Relocation and Resettlement", which was attended by the plaintiff and the six defendants in this case, and the minutes of the meeting clearly stated that "the general plan of surveying and mapping, surveying and mapping area and scope of the reconstruction and reconstruction project of 10 dilapidated houses in Baima East District, and the parties participating in the meeting had no objection", which proved that China Railway Company had no objection to the resettlement of the damaged households according to the measured area of the houses at that time, and now China Railway Company has no evidence to the contrary to deduce the party's commitment at that time, so this defense cannot be established. Third, China Railway Company argued that the excessive rent fee should be implemented in accordance with the relevant documents of urban village renovation of 1,500 yuan per month to 1,600 yuan per month. This court held that the letter dated March 10, 2014 from the Palm Shuying Office of the People's Government of Xishan District to the Radio and Television Company requesting the Radio and Television Company to pay the residents whose houses were damaged was 2,500 yuan per month for temporary rent overpayment, and that the Radio and Television Company implemented this standard in accordance with this standard, which was in line with the actual circumstances of the case, and that China Railway Company's defense could not be established. In summary, the Radio and Television Company's claim to pay the tenants a relocation and resettlement fee of 30,531,313.21 yuan has a corresponding factual basis, and this court supports this litigation claim. Second, with regard to the demolition fee of 950,000 yuan, it is the "Entrusted Demolition Contract" signed by the Radio and Television Company and an outsider to demolish the damaged 10 houses, but the 10 damaged houses have not been demolished, and the cost has not actually been incurred, and this court does not support the litigation request of the Radio and Television Company. Third, with regard to the appraisal fee of 1,187,905.8 yuan, the Radio and Television Company's claim that it entrusts the appraisal department to consult on the cost of the house to be rebuilt, evaluate the impact of the section of the proposed construction site, and preserve the site is not a direct loss caused by infringement from the content of the entrustment contract signed with a number of appraisal departments submitted by the Radio and Television Company, and at the same time, it is indistinguishable from the expenses incurred by the project developed and constructed by the Radio and Television Company, and this court does not support the litigation claim of the Radio and Television Company. Fourth, with regard to the design surveying and mapping fee of 538,594.17 yuan, the Radio and Television Company asserted that the court supported the expenses incurred by entrusting the appraisal department to survey and map the construction area of the damaged house, design the preliminary plan for the renovation of the dilapidated house, and design the composition of the topographic map, of which the cost of surveying and mapping the construction area of the damaged house was 73,588.68 yuan, which was related to the resettlement compensation plan for the damaged house in this case, and the cost of 73,588.68 yuan was supported by this court, and the court did not support the rest of the expenses. Fifth, with regard to the reconstruction environmental impact assessment fee of 195,000 yuan, the Radio and Television Company's claim that it entrusts an outsider to conduct an assessment of whether the redevelopment of the sectional house will have an impact on the surrounding environment, and the assessment of the traffic impact of the dilapidated housing reconstruction project, etc., has no necessary relevance to the harmful consequences of this case, and this court does not support the litigation request of the Radio and Television Company. Sixth, with regard to the security fee of 464,779.2 yuan, the legal service fee of 601,100 yuan, and the case agency fee (lawyer's fees for 8 other cases) of 299,684.4 yuan, the above are not inevitable expenses, and this court does not support the litigation claim of the radio and television company. Seventh, with regard to the water and electricity charges of 20,320.5 yuan, the Radio and Television Company asserted that it was paid for the households who had not moved out, and that it was the obligation of the households to pay the water and electricity bills, and this court did not support the litigation request of the Radio and Television Company. Eighth, about other expenses: (1) rental fee of 5,879,466.81 yuan, (2) maintenance fee of 805,782.10 yuan, (3) other expenses of 76,560.7 yuan (including housing agency fees, data copying fees, data production fees, wires, printing production fees, engraving plate production fees, housekeeping service fees, book fees, meal fees, etc.). This court held that, first, the rental fee was 5,879,466.81 yuan, and the radio and television company claimed that the accommodation and rental fees of the damaged residents were temporarily arranged after the house was damaged, and judging from the vouchers, the fee was received by the staff of the radio and television company, and whether the money was used to pay for the accommodation and rental fees after receiving the money did not have corresponding invoices, receipts and other evidence, and could not prove that the fees were indeed paid for the accommodation and rental fees of the residents whose houses were damaged, and this court did not support the litigation request of the radio and television company. Second, the maintenance fee was 805,782.10 yuan, and the radio and television company claimed that in addition to the 10 damaged houses with 424 households, the other 25, 26, and 37 houses with a total of 8 households were damaged, and after investigation, it was submitted by the radio and television company that it and the 8 households jointly entrusted the appraisal department to appraise the repair fee, and the appraisal report, "compensation agreement", "receipt", etc. issued by the appraisal department were confirmed, and the expenses had actually been incurred, but the actual maintenance cost was 607,815.6 yuan, and this court supported it. As for the 197,966.5 yuan of it, judging from the vouchers, it is to pay for the household's electricity bills, property management fees, entertainment expenses, journalists' accommodation fees, etc., and this court does not support the expenses that are not necessarily related to the harmful consequences of this case. Third, the housing agency fee, the cost of copying materials, the cost of making materials, wires, printing fees, engraving costs, housekeeping service fees, book fees, meal expenses, etc., totaled 76,560.7 yuan, and the above expenses were the daily office expenses of the radio and television company, and the expenses that were not necessarily incurred with the damage to the house, and the litigation claim of the radio and television company was not supported. Ninth, with regard to the cost of 2,485,275.24 yuan paid for the damage to the Daguan Police Station, after investigation, it was found that in 2012, the Daguan Police Station was damaged, and the Radio and Television Company temporarily rented an office building for the Daguan Police Station, and at the same time, at the request of the Xishan Public Security Bureau, it paid for the relocation and installation of the alarm and monitoring system of the Daguan Police Station. Tenth, the maintenance fee is 5,544,079.56 yuan, and the radio and television company claims that the maintenance of roads, fences, and facades of the walls in the Baima community around the dilapidated houses, and the maintenance of dormitories in other adjacent communities, etc., are not clear from the relevant government documents, meeting minutes, and "expert advisory opinions" that the roads, walls, etc. are within the scope of damage caused by the foundation pit construction in this case, and lack of relevant evidence with the infringement damage in this case, and this court does not support the litigation claim of the radio and television company. 11. With regard to the capital occupation fee of 16,017,763.36 yuan, the "Notarial Certificate of Entrustment Loan Contract" submitted by the Radio and Television Company stated that "the purpose of the loan is the later construction funds of the Daguan Radio and Television Cultural Home Project" was not based on the handling of the damage to the house, and the fund occupation fee lacked relevance to this case, and the litigation claim of the Radio and Television Company was not supported. 12. With regard to the Radio and Television Company's claim that the lawyer's fee of 480,000 yuan in this case is not an inevitable expense, this litigation claim is not supported. To sum up, the expenses advanced by the radio and television company in the process of disposing of the dilapidated houses in Baima were 33,697,992.73 yuan (30,531,313.21 yuan for the relocation and resettlement of residents + 73,588.68 yuan for design and surveying and mapping + 607,815.6 yuan for restoration + 2,485,275.24 yuan for Daguan Police Station) 5% of the expenses were borne by the Second Survey Institute of 1,684,899.64 yuan, 10% of which was borne by the supervision company of 3,369,799.27 yuan, and 25% by China Railway Corporation is 8,424,498.18 yuan, and 60% is 20,218,795.64 yuan by the radio and television company. To sum up, the plaintiff Radio and Television Company's claim is partially established, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 6, 12 and 26 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China and Paragraphs 1 and 118 of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
1. The Second Survey Institute of Yunnan Geological Engineering shall pay an advance payment of 1,684,899.64 yuan to Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment;2. Yunnan Development and Construction Supervision Co., Ltd. shall pay an advance payment of 3,369,799.27 yuan to Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment; China Railway Construction Group Co., Ltd. shall pay an advance payment of RMB 8,424,498.18 to Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment; If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt for the period of delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The case acceptance fee is 372646 yuan, which is 18,632.3 yuan by the Second Survey Institute of Yunnan Geological Engineering, 37,264.6 yuan by Yunnan Development and Construction Supervision Co., Ltd., 93,161.5 yuan by China Railway Construction Group Co., Ltd., and 223,587.6 yuan by Yunnan Radio and Television Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you may file an appeal petition with this court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of opposing parties, and the appellant shall submit it to the Supreme People's Court.
Presiding Judge: Gong Rui, Judge Zhou Huiqiong, Judge Wang Jing, January 19, 2018, Clerk: Zhao Yan