In this paper we provide an alternative explanation for there construction, by assuming that the expletive there (EXPL) has independently uninterpretable Case feature as well as u[person], not as being pied-pipied with $varphi$-feature. If EXPL has only u[person], we could analyse incorrectly some there constructions, including an embedded infinitive clause: by Chomsky (1998, 1999) in the construction, EXPL is ‘frozen’ and cannot participate in the computation of higher. As a result, we could predict incorrectly that the derivation is crashed. But if EXPL has two uninterpretable features, u[person] and u[Case], we could predict correctly that the derivation is converged: the u[person] of EXPL is deleted under Matching/Agree with $T_{def}$; still, the undeleted u[Case] of EXPL is activating; so EXPL can be raised to [SPEC, T] to satisfy the EPP-feature of matrix T.