Plaintiff Company A entered into a contract with Defendant Company B, stipulating that Company A would provide wall panel production and installation services fory B's office building located in Location B. The contract terms detailed the scope of work, construction period, quality requirements, technical data delivery, completion acceptance procedures, and settlement based on completion of the project, both parties signed a "Settlement Statement," which explicitly recorded the project name, address, construction items, area, and payment amounts, and aeed that "in the event of a dispute, if negotiation fails, both parties agree to submit the matter to the People's Court at the location of the party initiating the lawsuit for resolution.ispute arose regarding payment, and Company A filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Location A, claiming that Company B owes it 49,000 yuan. Defendaany B raised an objection to jurisdiction, arguing that the nature of the contract in question is a typical construction engineering contract, the payment claimed by Company A constitutes the outstanding balance confirmed after the sement of the project volume, and the agreed jurisdiction clause in the contract violates the mandatory provisions of exclusive jurisdiction; therefore, this case should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court i Location B, where the project is located.

The court, upon review, holds that,The key to determining the jurisdiction of this case lies in accurately identifying the nature of the underlying legal relationship between the parties.According to Article 788 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, "A construction contract is a contract under which the contractorconstruction work and the employer pays the price." In this case, the contract content agreed upon by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, including the installation of wall panels for a specific builice building), the construction site, construction period, quality standards, acceptance procedures, and settlement of costs based on the volume of work, all significantly exceed the scope of merely provlabor. These elements possess the essential characteristics of a decoration and renovation contract under construction contracts, and the "Settlement Statement" signed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant also corroborates the nthe involved project.A decoration and renovation contract relationship under the construction engineering contract was established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The essence of the dispute in this case is a dispute over the payment of project fees arising during the performance of a decoration and renovation contract; therefore, the cauction should be determined as a dispute over a decoration and renovation contract.Pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: "Litigation arising from disputes over immovable property shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the immovable property is located." Article 28(2) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that disputes over construction engineering contracts shall be subject to the jurisdiction determined in accordance with disputes over immovable property.The location of the project involved in this case is in Location B; therefore, according to the law, the People's Court of Location B has exclusive jurisdicter immovable property. Furthermore, the agreed jurisdiction clause in the contract involved is invalid due to violation of the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction, and the court of Location A has no jurisdiction ovr this case. The objection to jurisdiction raised by Defendant Company B is sustained.

This case has been transferred to the court in Location B for handling. After the ruling on the objection to jurisdiction was made, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant aled, and the ruling is now effective.