上诉人（一审被告）：[ ]贸易有限公司，住所地[ ].
The Appellant （The defendant in the first instance）：
被上诉人（一审原告）：[ ]工程总公司第一工程公司，住所地[ ].
The Appellee （The plaintiff in the first instance）：
The Appellant declines to accept the Civil Judgment with a number of （2001） Tai-Tie-Jing-Chu-Zi No 6 passed by Taiyuan Railway Transportation Court, in respect of the lease contract case, and hereby files the appeal according to law.
APPELATE FACTS AND REASONS：
Firstly, the Appellant’s basic and leading opinions about the case follow：
The Appellant maintains that in accordance with the mentalities of highly autonomous expression of intentions and contract freedom called for in the Contract Law, as well as the mainstream law-enforcing mentalities in judicial practice at present, there exist three contracts between the Appellant and the Appellee, which shall be deemed to be valid. The subjects, matters and considerations involved in the three contracts are basically identical.
I. The first-instance court ascertained that the house lease contract executed between the Appellant and the Appellee on May 14, 1998 was invalid. This ruling is not law-based.
II. The court ascertained that the Appellant’s exercise of the right to avoid performing the contract as a defense against the Appellee’s breach by reason that the Appellee has performed a majority of the contractual obligations and the Appellant was using the lease house when the parties entered into the contract. This ruling is in material violation of the provision of the Contract Law in respect of the defensive refusal to perform the contract.
Secondly, the following are some defensive opinions of the Appellant based on the first-instance judgment which cannot be fully accepted.
I. The ruling of the first-instance court ordering the Appellant to pay the rental according to the rental standard prescribed in the contract of 2000 by reason that the Appellant was in an actual lease relationship with the Appellee subsequent to 2001 is not law-based.
II. The first-instance judgment on the 13 square meters in respect of which the Appellant failed perform the contract is explicitly wrong in law implementation.
III. Given the isolated law execution by the first-instance court （i.e. it only considered the contract of 2000）, the Appellant has paid more than RMB20,000 in rental following 2000.
IV. Even under the circumstance of only handling the contract of 2000 by the first-instance court, no compensation has been given to decoration, which is unfair either.
In view of the foregoing, the Appellant maintains that there have existed three contracts between the Appellant and the Appellee. The Appellee and the first-instance court has intentionally isolated the complete set of civil juristic relationships between the parties, thereby leading to one-sided judgment in the first instance and adding burden to the parties’ litigation efforts. Meanwhile, the criteria for law-enforcement were unbalanced and unharmonious in the first instance, coupled with other problems including entitled law application and illegal ruling. Therefore, the Appellant requests second-instance court to make a fair judgment on the basis of ascertaining all facts of this case.
Beijing Railway Transportation Intermediate Court
The Appellant： [ ] Trade Co., Ltd
二00 年 月 日
Attachment： two copies of the appeal