【案情】
新(xin)(xin)(xin)加(jia)坡(po)(po)(po)(po)某建筑(zhu)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司與(yu)重(zhong)慶某制(zhi)衣(yi)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司簽訂《勞務(wu)合同(tong)(tong)(tong)》，約(yue)定由(you)(you)制(zhi)衣(yi)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司為(wei)建筑(zhu)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司組(zu)織(zhi)建筑(zhu)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)人(ren)(ren)提供建筑(zhu)勞務(wu)，由(you)(you)建筑(zhu)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司承擔工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)人(ren)(ren)出國所需手續、證件及機票費用(yong)。根據(ju)該《勞務(wu)合同(tong)(tong)(tong)》，制(zhi)衣(yi)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司組(zu)織(zhi)了若干名工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)人(ren)(ren)并簽訂《勞務(wu)派遣合同(tong)(tong)(tong)》，合同(tong)(tong)(tong)約(yue)定：“甲(jia)方(fang)(fang)（制(zhi)衣(yi)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司）根據(ju)與(yu)新(xin)(xin)(xin)加(jia)坡(po)(po)(po)(po)雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)簽訂的(de)(de)(de)赴新(xin)(xin)(xin)加(jia)坡(po)(po)(po)(po)勞務(wu)合同(tong)(tong)(tong)，公(gong)(gong)(gong)開招(zhao)收建筑(zhu)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)人(ren)(ren)，乙(yi)(yi)方(fang)(fang)（工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)人(ren)(ren)）自愿應招(zhao)，并通(tong)過新(xin)(xin)(xin)加(jia)坡(po)(po)(po)(po)政(zheng)府考試被錄用(yong)。”合同(tong)(tong)(tong)還(huan)約(yue)定了如下內容：關(guan)(guan)于乙(yi)(yi)方(fang)(fang)的(de)(de)(de)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作職(zhi)責，約(yue)定“乙(yi)(yi)方(fang)(fang)嚴格按照雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)要求進行施工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)、乙(yi)(yi)方(fang)(fang)必須(xu)隨(sui)時(shi)服從雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)的(de)(de)(de)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作安排(pai)、必須(xu)服從雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)或(huo)(huo)指定代表的(de)(de)(de)領導(dao)與(yu)管理(li)、違反(fan)以上條款(kuan)的(de)(de)(de)，乙(yi)(yi)方(fang)(fang)將無條件接受雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)的(de)(de)(de)處(chu)罰”；關(guan)(guan)于對(dui)乙(yi)(yi)方(fang)(fang)的(de)(de)(de)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)資發放，約(yue)定“雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)有權(quan)根據(ju)市場(chang)情(qing)況和(he)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司經營情(qing)況自主(zhu)調(diao)低(di)或(huo)(huo)調(diao)高計件工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)資制(zhi)的(de)(de)(de)定額單價(jia)；雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)將為(wei)一方(fang)(fang)在新(xin)(xin)(xin)加(jia)坡(po)(po)(po)(po)開設銀行賬戶(hu)，乙(yi)(yi)方(fang)(fang)的(de)(de)(de)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)資由(you)(you)雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)根據(ju)合同(tong)(tong)(tong)留存各種款(kuan)項后(hou)(hou)，3個(ge)月之內直(zhi)接進入乙(yi)(yi)方(fang)(fang)的(de)(de)(de)銀行賬戶(hu)”；關(guan)(guan)于工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)處(chu)理(li)，約(yue)定“乙(yi)(yi)方(fang)(fang)發生工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)以后(hou)(hou)，如查證屬實，雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)將按照新(xin)(xin)(xin)加(jia)坡(po)(po)(po)(po)相(xiang)關(guan)(guan)法律(lv)法規進行申報并理(li)賠”等(deng)。隨(sui)后(hou)(hou)，工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)人(ren)(ren)與(yu)新(xin)(xin)(xin)加(jia)坡(po)(po)(po)(po)某建筑(zhu)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司簽訂《雇(gu)(gu)傭外籍建筑(zhu)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)人(ren)(ren)合同(tong)(tong)(tong)》，并向(xiang)重(zhong)慶某制(zhi)衣(yi)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司繳(jiao)納(na)出國費1.3萬(wan)元。其后(hou)(hou)，工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)人(ren)(ren)赴新(xin)(xin)(xin)加(jia)坡(po)(po)(po)(po)務(wu)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)，雇(gu)(gu)傭期(qi)滿(man)后(hou)(hou)回國。
回國后(hou)，工人向法(fa)院(yuan)起訴制(zhi)衣公(gong)司(si)，請求確認與制(zhi)衣公(gong)司(si)簽(qian)訂(ding)的(de)《勞務(wu)派(pai)遣合同》無效，要求制(zhi)衣公(gong)司(si)退還出(chu)國費1.3萬(wan)元(yuan)。經查，制(zhi)衣公(gong)司(si)無外派(pai)勞務(wu)經營資格。
【分歧】
本案有兩個爭(zheng)議(yi)焦點(dian)：一(yi)是(shi)原、被告之間構(gou)成(cheng)何種法律關系；二是(shi)原、被告訂立的合同效力如(ru)何。
關(guan)(guan)于(yu)(yu)法律關(guan)(guan)系性質問題，主要有(you)(you)兩種觀點：一種認(ren)為，原(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)之間構成外派(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)合(he)(he)同(tong)關(guan)(guan)系。理(li)由是(shi)，被告(gao)(gao)與新(xin)加坡某建筑公司(si)(si)簽(qian)訂(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)(de)《勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)合(he)(he)同(tong)》應當屬(shu)于(yu)(yu)《對(dui)外勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)合(he)(he)作合(he)(he)同(tong)》，原(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)訂(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)立的(de)(de)(de)(de)《勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)派(pai)遣(qian)合(he)(he)同(tong)》屬(shu)于(yu)(yu)《外派(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)合(he)(he)同(tong)》；原(yuan)(yuan)告(gao)(gao)與新(xin)加坡某建筑公司(si)(si)簽(qian)訂(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)(de)《雇(gu)傭外籍建筑工(gong)人合(he)(he)同(tong)》屬(shu)于(yu)(yu)《雇(gu)傭合(he)(he)同(tong)》。另一種意(yi)見認(ren)為，原(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)是(shi)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)派(pai)遣(qian)法律關(guan)(guan)系。理(li)由是(shi)，被告(gao)(gao)無外派(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)經營資(zi)格(ge)；原(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)簽(qian)訂(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)(de)《勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)派(pai)遣(qian)合(he)(he)同(tong)》對(dui)合(he)(he)同(tong)期限、工(gong)作內容、工(gong)作地點、勞(lao)動報酬等有(you)(you)具體約定(ding)，可見，雙方具備(bei)勞(lao)動關(guan)(guan)系；此外，在被告(gao)(gao)與新(xin)加坡某建筑公司(si)(si)之間簽(qian)訂(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)(de)《勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)合(he)(he)同(tong)》中，沒有(you)(you)被告(gao)(gao)受建筑公司(si)(si)委托，以建筑公司(si)(si)名義招收工(gong)人的(de)(de)(de)(de)意(yi)思表(biao)示(shi)。
關(guan)于(yu)合同效(xiao)力問(wen)題，有三種(zhong)意見：第一種(zhong)意見認(ren)(ren)為，被(bei)告(gao)(gao)(gao)(gao)雖無(wu)(wu)外(wai)派(pai)勞(lao)務經(jing)(jing)營(ying)資(zi)格(ge)，但有關(guan)經(jing)(jing)營(ying)主體資(zi)格(ge)的(de)規(gui)定屬于(yu)管理(li)性(xing)(xing)強制性(xing)(xing)規(gui)范，違(wei)反后不(bu)影(ying)響合同效(xiao)力，原(yuan)(yuan)告(gao)(gao)(gao)(gao)無(wu)(wu)權請求被(bei)告(gao)(gao)(gao)(gao)退還所收取(qu)的(de)費用(yong)。第二種(zhong)意見認(ren)(ren)為，被(bei)告(gao)(gao)(gao)(gao)無(wu)(wu)外(wai)派(pai)勞(lao)務經(jing)(jing)營(ying)資(zi)格(ge)，原(yuan)(yuan)、被(bei)告(gao)(gao)(gao)(gao)訂立的(de)合同無(wu)(wu)效(xiao)，被(bei)告(gao)(gao)(gao)(gao)收取(qu)的(de)費用(yong)在扣除必要的(de)成本后，余下(xia)部分(fen)應予(yu)退還。第三種(zhong)意見認(ren)(ren)為，雙(shuang)方構成勞(lao)務派(pai)遣法(fa)律(lv)關(guan)系，而在勞(lao)務派(pai)遣關(guan)系中，禁止(zhi)用(yong)人(ren)單位向勞(lao)動者(zhe)收取(qu)任何費用(yong)，故合同無(wu)(wu)效(xiao)，出國費應予(yu)退還。
【評析】
筆者認為：
1、原、被告之(zhi)間構成外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)關(guan)系 外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)主(zhu)(zhu)要(yao)規(gui)定在部(bu)門規(gui)章及規(gui)范性(xing)文(wen)件之(zhi)中。商務(wu)(wu)部(bu)《關(guan)于做好境(jing)外(wai)(wai)(wai)就(jiu)業(ye)管(guan)理(li)工作的(de)(de)通知》第一條(tiao)第三款對(dui)外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)作了如下解(jie)釋(shi)：“外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)是(shi)(shi)指企(qi)業(ye)與境(jing)外(wai)(wai)(wai)允許招(zhao)收或雇傭外(wai)(wai)(wai)籍勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)人員的(de)(de)公司(si)、中介機構或私人雇主(zhu)(zhu)簽訂合同，并按照合同約(yue)定的(de)(de)條(tiao)件有組織(zhi)地招(zhao)聘(pin)、選拔(ba)、派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)遣中國(guo)公民到(dao)境(jing)外(wai)(wai)(wai)為外(wai)(wai)(wai)方雇主(zhu)(zhu)提(ti)供勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)服務(wu)(wu)并進行管(guan)理(li)的(de)(de)經濟活(huo)動(dong)(dong)，從事上述(shu)境(jing)外(wai)(wai)(wai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)遣活(huo)動(dong)(dong)的(de)(de)企(qi)業(ye)稱為外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)企(qi)業(ye)。”從該(gai)規(gui)定以及其(qi)他(ta)相(xiang)關(guan)規(gui)定來看，外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)與勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)遣最主(zhu)(zhu)要(yao)的(de)(de)區別應該(gai)在于法(fa)律關(guan)系性(xing)質(zhi)的(de)(de)不同：外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)關(guan)系中，勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)人員和外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)公司(si)之(zhi)間形(xing)成的(de)(de)是(shi)(shi)外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)法(fa)律關(guan)系，與國(guo)外(wai)(wai)(wai)用工單(dan)位之(zhi)間形(xing)成的(de)(de)是(shi)(shi)雇傭法(fa)律關(guan)系，換言(yan)之(zhi)，外(wai)(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)只是(shi)(shi)一種外(wai)(wai)(wai)貿中介,經營公司(si)和勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)人員之(zhi)間并不直(zhi)接形(xing)成勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)關(guan)系;而在勞(lao)務(wu)(wu)派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)遣關(guan)系中，派(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)(pai)遣單(dan)位和勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)者(zhe)之(zhi)間形(xing)成勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)關(guan)系。
筆(bi)者認為(wei)(wei)，對(dui)(dui)法律(lv)關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)(xi)性質的認定(ding)顯然不應僅(jin)僅(jin)取決(jue)于(yu)合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)名(ming)稱，而應根據合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)中所約定(ding)的具(ju)體(ti)(ti)權利(li)義務來(lai)確定(ding)。本案中，原(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)簽(qian)(qian)(qian)訂的合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)雖(sui)然名(ming)為(wei)(wei)《勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務派(pai)(pai)遣(qian)合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)》，而且合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)也對(dui)(dui)工(gong)作內容、勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)報酬、工(gong)傷保險、勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)紀(ji)律(lv)等(deng)事項作了較詳盡(jin)的約定(ding)，但約定(ding)內容的承擔主(zhu)(zhu)體(ti)(ti)并(bing)非被告(gao)(gao)而是(shi)雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)(zhu)新(xin)加坡(po)公(gong)司，無論是(shi)工(gong)作的提供(gong)(gong)對(dui)(dui)象、勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)報酬的支(zhi)付主(zhu)(zhu)體(ti)(ti)，還(huan)是(shi)工(gong)傷保險的責任主(zhu)(zhu)體(ti)(ti)、勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)紀(ji)律(lv)的管理主(zhu)(zhu)體(ti)(ti)，均明確為(wei)(wei)該合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)的第三方即新(xin)加坡(po)雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)(zhu)，合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)中并(bing)無原(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)間關(guan)(guan)于(yu)支(zhi)付工(gong)資(zi)、辦理社會保險等(deng)體(ti)(ti)現(xian)勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)權利(li)義務的具(ju)體(ti)(ti)約定(ding)，工(gong)人(ren)若被雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)(zhu)遣(qian)送回(hui)國(guo)，被告(gao)(gao)亦(yi)不負責向原(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)告(gao)(gao)發放基本工(gong)資(zi)。因此(ci)，不能(neng)認定(ding)原(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)形成勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)(xi)，亦(yi)即不能(neng)認定(ding)原(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)間形成勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務派(pai)(pai)遣(qian)關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)(xi)。相反，雙方簽(qian)(qian)(qian)訂的《勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務派(pai)(pai)遣(qian)合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)》具(ju)有(you)外(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)的核(he)心要素(su)——為(wei)(wei)中國(guo)公(gong)民與(yu)(yu)外(wai)(wai)方雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)間建立勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)(xi)提供(gong)(gong)中介服務。而且，外(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)(xi)中一般存在經營公(gong)司與(yu)(yu)境外(wai)(wai)雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)(zhu)簽(qian)(qian)(qian)訂的《對(dui)(dui)外(wai)(wai)勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)作合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)》、與(yu)(yu)勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務人(ren)員簽(qian)(qian)(qian)訂的《外(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)》，以(yi)及勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務人(ren)員與(yu)(yu)雇(gu)(gu)主(zhu)(zhu)簽(qian)(qian)(qian)訂的《雇(gu)(gu)傭合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)》這三個(ge)協議。本案中，原(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)及新(xin)加坡(po)公(gong)司相互(hu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)間所簽(qian)(qian)(qian)訂的三個(ge)合(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)與(yu)(yu)外(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)(xi)所包含的三個(ge)協議是(shi)相一致(zhi)的。因此(ci)，原(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)、被告(gao)(gao)構(gou)成外(wai)(wai)派(pai)(pai)勞(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)(lao)務關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)(xi)。
2、原、被(bei)告簽訂(ding)的(de)(de)合同無(wu)效 理由是：《最高人民法(fa)(fa)院關(guan)于適用〈中(zhong)華人民共和國(guo)合同法(fa)(fa)〉若干問題的(de)(de)解釋（一）》（下(xia)稱《合同法(fa)(fa)》解釋一）第十條(tiao)規定(ding)(ding)(ding)：“當(dang)(dang)事人超越經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)范圍訂(ding)立合同，人民法(fa)(fa)院不因此認定(ding)(ding)(ding)合同無(wu)效。但(dan)違(wei)反國(guo)家限制經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)、特(te)(te)許(xu)經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)以及法(fa)(fa)律、行(xing)(xing)政(zheng)法(fa)(fa)規禁止經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)規定(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)除外(wai)。”結(jie)合本案，首先(xian)需要明確(que)外(wai)派(pai)勞(lao)(lao)務(wu)(wu)(wu)是否屬(shu)于限制經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)、特(te)(te)許(xu)經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)或(huo)者禁止經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)范疇。對外(wai)貿易(yi)法(fa)(fa)第十條(tiao)規定(ding)(ding)(ding)：“從事國(guo)際(ji)服務(wu)(wu)(wu)貿易(yi)，應(ying)(ying)(ying)當(dang)(dang)遵守(shou)本法(fa)(fa)和其他有關(guan)法(fa)(fa)律、行(xing)(xing)政(zheng)法(fa)(fa)規的(de)(de)規定(ding)(ding)(ding)。從事對外(wai)工程承包或(huo)者對外(wai)勞(lao)(lao)務(wu)(wu)(wu)合作的(de)(de)單(dan)位，應(ying)(ying)(ying)當(dang)(dang)具(ju)備相(xiang)應(ying)(ying)(ying)的(de)(de)資質或(huo)者資格(ge)。具(ju)體辦法(fa)(fa)由國(guo)務(wu)(wu)(wu)院規定(ding)(ding)(ding)。”《國(guo)務(wu)(wu)(wu)院對明確(que)需保留的(de)(de)行(xing)(xing)政(zheng)審批(pi)項目設(she)定(ding)(ding)(ding)行(xing)(xing)政(zheng)許(xu)可的(de)(de)決(jue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)》明確(que)將對外(wai)勞(lao)(lao)務(wu)(wu)(wu)合作的(de)(de)經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)資格(ge)納入(ru)商務(wu)(wu)(wu)部行(xing)(xing)政(zheng)許(xu)可范圍，故外(wai)派(pai)勞(lao)(lao)務(wu)(wu)(wu)屬(shu)于特(te)(te)許(xu)經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)應(ying)(ying)(ying)無(wu)疑義。被(bei)告在不具(ju)備經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)資質的(de)(de)情況下(xia)從事外(wai)派(pai)勞(lao)(lao)務(wu)(wu)(wu)活動(dong)，違(wei)反國(guo)家關(guan)于外(wai)派(pai)勞(lao)(lao)務(wu)(wu)(wu)經(jing)(jing)(jing)營(ying)資格(ge)的(de)(de)規定(ding)(ding)(ding)，故本案訟爭合同應(ying)(ying)(ying)為無(wu)效，被(bei)告收取的(de)(de)費用在扣(kou)除必要的(de)(de)成(cheng)本后，余下(xia)部分應(ying)(ying)(ying)予退還。
|
上一條：沒有了
下一條：勞務派遣工同工同酬難在哪里 |
返回列表 |
