Court Rejects Claim for 65,000 RMB in Service Fees by Marketing Employee Against Related Company

Court Rejects Claim for 65,000 RMB in Service Fees by Marketing Employee Against Related Company

Case Overview

In this civil dispute from Eastern China, a marketing department employee brought a claim against a related company for 65,000 RMB in alleged service fees. The plaintiff argued that a company manager had approved the payment of business management fees to him personally. However, the court rejected the claim, finding that the key document supporting the fee was forged and that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a contractual or employment relationship that would entitle him to the payment.

Case Background and Facts

The plaintiff, Mr. Yang, was employed by Ningbo Global Building Materials Co., Ltd. as a deputy manager of the marketing department. He claimed that from July 2004 to February 2009, the marketing department was managed by a person named Mr. Xie. According to Mr. Yang, a document titled “Request for the Company to Clarify Marketing Department Business Management Fees” was approved, requiring the defendant, Ningbo Ying’s Global Building Materials Co., Ltd., to pay 375,000 RMB in business management fees to the marketing department.

In February 2009, the general manager of the defendant company, identified as Mr. Wang, allegedly approved a payment of 225,000 RMB for business management fees for the period from July 2004 to February 2009. Of this amount, 65,000 RMB was designated for Mr. Yang personally. The plaintiff claimed that due to a share transfer involving the defendant’s investors in March 2009, the fees were never paid. Despite repeated demands through Mr. Xie, the defendant did not pay the amount, leading to the lawsuit.

Court Proceedings and Evidence

The case was heard in a court in Eastern China. Mr. Yang provided several documents to support his claim. These included the original “Request” document, an internal report showing the manager’s approval, a lawyer’s letter and reply, a letter demanding immediate payment, corporate management records, a share transfer agreement, and evidence of his employment with the related company.

The defendant argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed. It contended that the dispute was essentially about labor remuneration, not a civil contract dispute, and should have been handled through labor arbitration. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff was part of a unified management system across several related companies and had an employment relationship with the defendant, not a service relationship.

Crucially, the defendant submitted a forensic document examination report from a recognized university. This report concluded that the signature of Mr. Xie on the key “Request” document, which appeared to be dated July 2004, was actually made around 2009. The defendant argued this proved the document was forged and the claim was fraudulent.

Court Findings and Judgment

The court first addressed the nature of the relationship between the parties. It found that Mr. Yang’s labor contract was signed with Ningbo Global Building Materials Co., Ltd., and his salary and social insurance were paid by that company. The defendant claimed the plaintiff was its employee due to the companies operating as a single unit, but the court held that the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not have an employment relationship with the defendant.

Regarding the core issue of the business management fee, the court examined the forensic evidence. The document examination report, which the court found to be legally obtained and reliable, showed that the signature on the “Request” document was not made in 2004 as claimed, but around 2009. This finding directly undermined the authenticity of the plaintiff’s primary evidence.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the defendant owed him the claimed 65,000 RMB. The court stated that each party bears the burden of proving its own claims and must accept the legal consequences of failing to do so. Based on this principle, the court rejected Mr. Yang’s lawsuit in its entirety. The court also ordered the plaintiff to bear the court costs of 712.5 RMB.

Key Legal Principles

The court applied the fundamental principle that the party who asserts a claim has the burden of proof. This principle is codified in Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The court emphasized that if a party cannot provide credible evidence to support its claim, the claim cannot be upheld. In this case, the plaintiff’s key documentary evidence was proven to be inauthentic through forensic examination, which was fatal to his case.

Practical Insights

This case highlights the critical importance of authentic and reliable evidence in civil litigation. A party cannot rely on documents that are later proven to be forged or backdated. The court will scrutinize the timing and authenticity of key documents, especially when they are central to the claim. The case also demonstrates that a person’s employment status is determined by the actual contract and payment records, not by the operational structure of related companies. A party cannot simply assume a relationship exists without clear proof.

Legal References

Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007 Revision), Article 64, Paragraph 1: It is the duty of a party to provide evidence in support of its own allegations.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.