施工合同无效,该如何裁处当事人不同的结算请求?——常州仲裁委员会(2007)第×××号案件仲裁裁决引发的惊涛骇浪

根据法律和司法解释的规定，施工合同无效后的工程价款结算方式主要有两种：参照合同约定结算和按实结算。在无效施工合同纠纷中，发包人和承包人往往主张按照不同的方式来结算工程价款，而成为此类案件审理的主要争议焦点，并会增加法院和仲裁委员会处理此类案件的难度。本文作者作为首席仲裁员裁决的一件建设工程施工合同纠纷仲裁案件即涉及如何裁处施工合同无效后当事人所提出的不同结算请求的问题，该案仲裁裁决作出后经受了三级法院（包括最高人民法院）的司法审查，最高人民法院并对该案作出专门答复。本文介绍了该仲裁案件的基本案情、裁决情况及司法审查情况，并在此基础上总结该案仲裁裁决经受住三级法院司法审查的经验，与各位读者分享和交流，以期引起各界对施工合同无效后的工程价款结算方式的关注和研究。

According to the provisions of laws and the judicial interpretations, there are two main methods of project price settlement when the construction contract is invalid： settlement referring to the contract and settlement according to the actual quantities. In the dispute where the construction contract is invalid, the employer and the contractor often advocate different methods of project price settlement, which becomes the main disputable focus of such kind of cases and thus increases the difficulty for courts and arbitration commissions in dealing with such cases. The author of this paper, as the chief arbitrator, has ruled an arbitration case of construction contract dispute relating to the adjudication of the different settlement requests raised by the parties when the construction contract is invalid. The arbitration award of the case has been reviewed by three levels of courts （ including the Supreme People＇s Court）, and eventually the Supreme People＇s Court gave its official reply to the case. This paper introduces the basic facts of the case, the hearing and decision process of the case, and the judicial reviews on the arbitration award, and also concludes the experience why the arbitration award of the case could withstand the judicial reviews by three levels of courts. This paper hereby shares and communicates such information and experience with readers and thus expects to arouse the concerns and studies on the methods of project price settlement when the construction contract is invalid.