Spend 60,000 yuan to buy: One construction is exempted from three subjects, and the registration is successful and the exam is taken, which arouses **attention!
Background of the case. Recently, the Chinese arbitrator ** announced the award of the dispute between Mei and Guangzhou Construction Engineering Education Company. Mei met Guangzhou Construction Engineering Education Company through a friend's introduction, and his friend told him that he could be exempted from the three subjects of a first-class construction engineer for only 60,000 yuan. He signed the "2021 Registered First-Class Constructor Approval Agreement" with Guangzhou Construction Engineering Education Company, and paid 60,000 yuan in tuition fees in April and July. Guangzhou Construction Engineering Training Company promised to exempt Amei from three subjects. However, because Mei provided false personal information, she could not use the qualification she had obtained even if she passed the exam. Therefore, Xiaomei sued the court and demanded the return of 60,000 yuan.
The defendant, Guangzhou Construction Engineering Education Company, argued that the company had only registered based on the information provided by Mei, and declared that it was not responsible. However, Mei's WeChat chat records with Zhang Mouchao, the company's legal representative, confirmed the fact that the company forged the builder's certificate and passed the audit. During the trial, both parties admitted that Guangzhou Construction Engineering Education Company had made a forged first-class construction engineer certificate for Mei, and confirmed that Mei had taken the exam.
Because the case was suspected of forging official documents, certificates, seals and other crimes of state organs, the court finally decided to reject Mei's request and transfer the relevant materials to the investigating authorities. At the same time, the court halves the case acceptance fee.
Details of the case. Amei is a beginner who is taking the first-class constructor exam for the first time. He was very surprised when he learned that Guangzhou Construction Engineering Education Company could be exempted from three subjects. On the recommendation of a friend, he decided to cooperate with the company and signed a cooperation agreement. According to the agreement, he only needs to pay 60,000 yuan to be exempted from the three subjects of the first-class constructor, which is undoubtedly an attractive choice for Amei.
Mei paid the required fees through the company and successfully registered for the exam. However, he provided false personal information when registering and passed the exam. Although he took the exam and got good grades, he was unable to obtain a certificate that corresponded to his identity due to being related to false information. Mei was very disappointed and regretful, and decided to resort to law to recover the 60,000 yuan he had paid.
However, Guangzhou Construction Education Company argued that it only handled the registration procedures based on the information provided by Mei and did not assume any responsibility. However, through the WeChat conversation records between Mei and Zhang Mouchao, the company's legal representative, it can be seen that the company issued a forged construction engineer certificate. In court, both sides admitted this. Mei said he chose to work for the company because he had heard that other colleagues had obtained their qualifications in this way. He didn't know it was illegal to do so, and he always thought he would be able to pass the exam.
In the end, in accordance with the provisions of applicable law, the court determined that the behavior of Guangzhou Construction Engineering Education Company was suspected of a crime, ruled to reject Mei's litigation claim, and handed over the relevant materials to the investigation agency. At the same time, the court also refunded the case acceptance fee to Mei by half.
Analyze the case. This case reflects the fact that some examination training institutions have adopted various means to meet the needs of customers in order to attract customers and make profits. The court severely cracked down on such behavior, rejected Mei's litigation claim in accordance with the law, and transferred the relevant materials to the investigating agency.
First of all, it is a serious violation of the law for Guangzhou Jianjiao Company to make and provide false certificates for Mei even though it knew that the personal information provided by Mei was false. The company's purpose of seeking illegal benefits violated legal principles and professional ethics, and should be punished by law.
Secondly, in this case, Mei was also at fault. His choice to work with Guangzhou Construction Engineering Education Company may have been out of ignorance, but he must also be held accountable for his actions. As a candidate, he provided false personal information when registering, which infringed on the rights and interests of third parties and violated the principle of integrity in the examination. Therefore, they should also bear the responsibility for their faults.
Finally, this case has a warning effect on society as a whole. It reminds people not to act against the law for the sake of momentary convenience and personal gain. Both candidates and training providers must respect the law and maintain integrity in order to effectively obtain the qualifications and recognition they deserve.
Personal opinion. The author believes that this case is not only an economic dispute, but also a serious warning to social integrity and professional ethics. Both candidates and training institutions must be honest and cannot violate legal and moral principles in order to pursue their own interests.
Training institutions such as Guangzhou Construction Engineering Education Company must take responsibility for providing high-quality education and training services, rather than attracting customers by deception and creating fake certificates. This irresponsible behavior not only damages the rights and interests of the trainees, but also has a negative impact on the image of the entire industry. Such acts should be severely punished by the law in order to set an example.
As for candidates, they should know that they must qualify through the right channels. Any violations will be reported and can have serious legal consequences. Therefore, we must insist on the honesty and reliability of the examination process and do not obtain certificates through improper means. Only through legitimate efforts and legal means can we truly obtain the results and recognition we deserve.
Overall, this case provides us with an important negative lesson on the importance of integrity and legal awareness. Both training institutions and candidates must consciously respect the law and safeguard social fairness and justice. Only on the basis of honesty and reliability can we build a better society.