Debit: 2,000,000 leased assets to be transferred.
Loan: The sublease rent payable is 2 million yuan.
(2) When the company and the leased enterprise rent according to the contract:
Debit: 2,000,000 rental receivable; loan: 2,000,000 assets to be leased.
(3) When the company calculates the down payment rent:
Debit: accounts receivable-subletting income of accounts receivable is 250,000 yuan.
Loan: The sublease rent receivable is 230,000 yuan, and the rental income is 20,000 yuan.
(4) When the rent is actually received:
Debit: the bank deposit is 250,000 yuan.
Loan: accounts receivable-subletting income of accounts receivable is 250,000 yuan.
(5) When paying sublease rent by installments:
Borrow: The sublease rent payable is 230,000 yuan.
Loan: 230,000 yuan in bank deposit.
Accounting entries in subsequent periods are the same as (3), (4) and (5).
(6) When the lease expires, the company sells the leased assets according to the contract, and the income is 65,438+0,000 yuan:
Debit: bank deposit 10000
Loan: Li Junguo, one of the three shareholders of Dongying Luguang Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd. (Party A), signed a lease contract with the plaintiff (Party B) on behalf of the company. Contract: Party A agrees to lease the shed under the roof, walls, windows and stairs on the first floor on the south side of Luguang Boutique Furniture City to Party B to sell lamps; The lease period is from 1999 to 2004; The annual rent is 50,000 yuan; Party A agrees that Party B will dismantle the original roof on the south side of the first floor and redesign it according to Party B's requirements; Party B must complete the renovation at the end of March, and the expenses will start from 1999 and April 1. After the plaintiff (Party A) and the defendant (Party B) signed the Sublease Contract of Halo Lighting Concourse on February 30, 2000, the contract stipulated that Party A agreed to lease the shed on the first floor on the south side of Luguang Boutique Furniture City and the surrounding walls, windows and stairs to Party B for the sale of lamps; The lease term is from February 30, 2000 to March 30, 2004. The annual rent is 50,000 yuan, paid on the 25th of each month; Party A's renovation of the top wall of the interior room is equivalent to 40,000 yuan, and Party B pays 20,000 yuan to implement the contract, and the remaining 200 1 will be paid before the end of the month; Party A guarantees the normal operation of Party B. After the contract was signed, the defendant paid 20,000 yuan to the plaintiff, and the defendant has not paid the remaining 20,000 yuan; The defendant has been paying the contract rent to Li Junguo, but not to the plaintiff.
The defendant provided the Indoor Ceiling Lease Contract signed with Dongying Luguang Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. on October 28th, 200 1+ 1 year, which stated that the owner of the lease contract signed by the original defendant was Dongying Luguang Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., and Li Junguo signed a lease contract with the plaintiff after renting the house of Dongying Luguang Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., but the owner did not recognize the sublease contract signed by the original defendant and the defendant. The plaintiff refused to accept this and the defendant did not provide other evidence to prove it.
[trial]
The Dongying District Court held through trial that the plaintiff rented the house of Dongying Luguang Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd. and subletted it to the defendant, and the defendant paid all the rent of the lease contract signed with the plaintiff to Li Junguo, one of the three shareholders who signed the lease contract with the plaintiff on behalf of Dongying Luguang Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd. And Li Junguo's behavior of collecting rent on behalf of Dongying Luguang Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd. shall be regarded as Dongying Luguang Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd. agreeing to sublease, so the sublease contract signed by the original and the defendant is legal and effective, and the defendant shall timely pay the transfer fee of the remaining 20,000 yuan for the interior top wall decorated by the plaintiff according to the contract. The dispute was caused by the defendant's failure to pay in time as stipulated in the contract, and the defendant should take full responsibility. The plaintiff claims that the defendant should pay the remaining transfer fee of 20,000 yuan for the top wall of the inner room, which is in line with the law and our court supports it. The defendant claimed that the owner of the sublease contract signed by the original defendant was Dongying Luguang Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., which was leased to the plaintiff by Li Junguo. The landlord did not recognize the sublease contract signed by the original defendant, and the plaintiff did not recognize it. The defendant did not provide other evidence to prove it, so the court refused to accept his claim. In accordance with the provisions of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Articles 60, 107, 109 and 224 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), Dongying Guanghuan Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. was sentenced to pay the transfer fee of 20,000 yuan to the plaintiff Hou Yuanxun within 10 days after this judgment came into effect. The case acceptance fee of 8 10 yuan shall be borne by the defendant.
After the judgment of the first instance, the defendant Dongying Guanghuan Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed to the Dongying Intermediate People's Court according to law.
Case 3
Repair lease and Jiangxi Guotou sublease dispute case.
On May 1989, China Fuxing International Leasing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fuxing Leasing) entered into a lease power of attorney with Jiangxi International Trust and Investment Company (hereinafter referred to as Jiangxi Guotou) and Xinyu Bedding Factory (hereinafter referred to as Xinyu Factory), stating: "Party B (referring to Jiangxi Guotou) entrusts Party A (referring to Fuxing Leasing) to handle the lease matters, and promises not to entrust a third party to handle the lease matters. Party B shall pay a deposit of RMB 6,543,800+0.6 million to Party A within 654.38+0.5 days after signing the power of attorney. " 1989 may 16, Fuxing lease signed a lease contract with Jiangxi sdic. According to the contract, according to the requirements of Jiangxi Guotou, the restoration lease aims at leasing to the latter, and the Dutch rotary screen printing machine and Swiss flat screen printing machine with a value of $6.5438+0.5 million are purchased and leased to Jiangxi Guotou for 60 months. Jiangxi SDIC needs to pay the rent to Kangfu once every six months in US dollars, in installments of 10. Customs duties, consolidated industrial and commercial tax and other taxes related to the purchase of leased items, as well as the fees for opening letters of credit by banks, shall be borne by Jiangxi SDIC. Jiangxi SDIC takes the loan amount paid to Kangfu Lease as the handling fee for paying Kangfu Lease, and stipulates the procedures for the arrival of the leased property at the port, delivery, customs declaration, inspection and delivery, and also declares that the ownership of the leased property belongs to Kangfu Lease. Jiangxi SDIC will cable Kangfu Leasing to remit the rental funds to the designated bank account. In this lease contract, Jiangxi SDIC is the signature and seal of the lessee, and there is also the signature and seal of Xinyu Factory under it, but brackets are specially added.
Previously, Xinyu Municipal Planning Commission and Finance Bureau stated in a document issued on May 6, 1989/kloc-0 that "Jiangxi was invited to invest in Kangfu Company to lease imported equipment for 1.5 million dollars"; The Financial Management Office of Jiangxi Branch of the People's Bank of China issued a special letter to Kangfu Leasing on May 1989, which proved that "Jiangxi SDIC is a non-bank financial institution approved by the head office of the People's Bank of China to engage in foreign exchange business, and international financial leasing business is one of its business scope"; Xinyu Sub-branch of Bank of China stated in its letter to Kangfu Leasing on May 1989 that "Jiangxi Guotou intends to provide Xinyu Bedding Factory with the sublease business of $6,543.8+0.5 million".
1On May 22, 1989, Kangfu Leasing received a deposit of 16000 yuan from Xinyu Factory, with a handling fee of 55800 yuan, totaling 2 15800 yuan.
1On May 23rd, 989, Jiangxi Guotou, as the lessor of Party A, and Xinyu Factory, as the lessee of Party B, also signed a (lease contract) (hereinafter referred to as "5.23 contract"). The stipulations in this contract on the lease items, lease term, rent calculation and payment are basically the same as those in the 89KFL/A063 lease contract. Article 22 of the contract clearly stipulates that "Party B shall pay a handling fee of RMB 50,000 Yuan to Party A at one time." "Party A entrusts Party B to remit the interest and principal directly to China Kangfu Leasing Company in installments". Xinyu Planning Commission and Xinyu Finance Bureau signed and sealed the contract as foreign exchange guarantor and RMB guarantor respectively.
On May 24th, 1989, Xinyu Factory remitted a handling fee of 50,000 yuan to Jiangxi SDIC. On the same day, Yao Moumou, who was in charge of the project in Jiangxi Guotou, reported to Li Moumou, who rented it, saying, "Please remit 150 USD to the account number 82406 of Xinyu Branch of Bank of China before May 28th".
1On May 30th, 989, Kangfu Leasing instructed Fuji Bank Shenzhen Branch to withdraw 1.5 million USD from its account and pay it to China Bank Xinyu Branch.
On June 5, 1989, Fuji Bank Shenzhen Branch remitted 1, 499,995.00 USD to the account No.82406 opened by Xinyu Factory in China Bank Xinyu Sub-branch after deducting the handling fee of 5 USD.
From the effective date of 89KFL/A063 lease contract to 1998 10 10/0/day, the rent payable by Jiangxi Guotou is 1, 9 17, 01/. 1989 65438+February 2 8203 1.25 USD1990 June 6 73593.75 USD1990 65438+February 6 264843.75 USD. 1July 7, 1997, 65,438+65,438+000,000.00 yuan), 65,438+0,483,272.88 yuan in rent arrears and 758,466,5438+0./kloc-0 in interest arrears.
1June 3, 1990 to1June 3, 1998, 2 1 day, Fuxing Leasing issued a notice of rent payment or a notice of breach of contract to Jiangxi Guotou for 2/kloc-0 times, demanding that Jiangxi Guotou pay off the arrears of rent and interest.
1On June 29th, 1994, Kangfu Leasing signed an agreement between Party A and Party B's Jiangxi Guotou and Party C's Xinyu Factory. The agreement stipulated that "in order to return the foreign exchange rent owed by Party C to Party A as soon as possible, the following agreement was reached through friendly negotiation: Party C provides the source of export products and foreign customers, and all the money will be remitted to Party A's account as the foreign exchange rent returned to Party A in the name of Party C after signing the export contract with Party B." This agreement has not yet been fulfilled.
It was also found out that before Kangfu Leasing, Jiangxi Guotou and Xinyu Factory entered into the 89KFL/ A063 lease contract, Xinyu Factory had entrusted China Machinery Import and Export Corporation to purchase rotary screen printing machines and flat screen printing machines, and China Machinery Import and Export Corporation signed the contract on June 5438+0988165438+1October 71. At the same time, Xinyu Factory and Xinyu Sub-branch of Bank of China signed a loan contract on June 5438+September 0988 12, stipulating that Xinyu Factory would borrow 2.2 million dollars from Xinyu Sub-branch of Bank of China to import rotary screen printing machines and flat screen printing machines, and this equipment was listed as the factory's fixed assets. Xinyu Sub-branch of Bank of China issued loans of US$ 965,361.08 and US$ 560,943.02 to Xinyu Factory on1October 23rd 1989 and April 26th respectively. Xinyu Factory used the above loan to pay for the purchase of rotary screen printing machine and flat screen printing machine. When Kangfu Leasing entered into the 89KFL/A063 lease contract, it knew that Xinyu Factory had entrusted China Machinery Import and Export Corporation to purchase the leased property, so it did not purchase the leased property and delivered it to Xinyu Factory as agreed in the contract. The payment of $6,543.8 +0.5 million yuan was not used by Xinyu Factory to pay for the purchase of rotary screen printing machines and flat screen printing machines, but was used for other purposes.
1In July, 1998, with the consent of Xinyu Municipal People's Government, Xinyu Factory divested all its effective assets, registered and established Xinyu Weaving and Dyeing Factory, and transferred its foreign debt to Xinyu Weaving and Dyeing Factory.
1On August 9, 1998, Dongdongbao Industrial Co., Ltd., Xinyu Textile Printing and Dyeing Factory and Xinyu Textile Industry Office signed the merger contract and related asset transfer agreement, debt transfer agreement and employee transfer agreement, and the related debts were transferred to Dongdongbao Company. The equipment involved in this case was also handed over to Dongdongbao Company as the fixed assets of Xinyu Factory.
Kangfu Leasing sued Jiangxi Guotou in the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province, claiming that Jiangxi Guotou was in arrears with rent, but failed to fulfill its obligation to pay rent after repeated reminders, and requested that Jiangxi Guotou immediately pay the arrears of rent and the delayed interest on overdue rent, and bear all the litigation costs.
After being accepted by Jiangxi Higher People's Court, Xinyu Factory and Dongdongbao Company were added as co-defendants in this case.
Jiangxi Guotou, the defendant, argued that Kangfu Leasing was obliged to sign a contract for purchasing printing machines in its own name according to the agreement in the financial leasing contract signed with Kangfu Leasing, but Kangfu Leasing neither signed a contract for purchasing printing machines nor entrusted anyone to buy printing machines, and its financial leasing contract with Kangfu Leasing was not actually fulfilled. Kangfu Leasing actually formed a loan relationship with Xinyu Factory, requesting the court to reject the claim of Kangfu Leasing.
Defendant Xinyu Factory claimed that it was a fact to sign the lease contract and also received the money from Kangfu lease. But the money was not used to buy a printing machine, but used for other purposes. It acknowledges the debt and is prepared to pay it by all means.
The defendant Dongdongbao Company argued that according to its merger contract with Xinyu Textile Industry Bureau, the debt leased to Kangfu was not within the scope of the contract. There is no direct legal relationship with this case, and there is no obligation to bear civil liability directly to other units outside Xinyu Textile Industry Office.
Question:
1. Is the lease contract valid? Why?
2. What responsibilities should Xinyu Factory and Kangfu Leasing bear?
3. How should this case be handled?
The Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province held through trial that before signing the 89KFL/A063 lease contract, Xinyu Factory had entrusted China Machinery Import and Export Corporation to purchase the leased property agreed in the contract, and the required loan was also prepared to be paid by the loan of Xinyu Branch of China Bank, not by Kangfu Leasing. Xinyu factory has no real intention to fulfill the 89KFL/A063 lease contract from the beginning. However, in order to obtain funds from Kangfu Leasing, Xinyu Factory deliberately concealed the truth, and still signed the 89KFL/A063 lease contract with Kangfu Leasing and Jiangxi Guotou. Therefore, Xinyu Factory's behavior is fraudulent, and the 89KFL/A063 lease contract should be confirmed invalid according to law. The USD 654.38+RMB 50,000 collected by Xinyu Factory should be returned to Kangfu Leasing, and the handling fee and deposit collected by Kangfu Leasing should be returned to Xinyu Factory at RMB 265.438+RMB 58,800 (calculated at the exchange rate of1May 20, 989 of 654.38+0: 3.73, equivalent to USD 57,855,220). USD 4,206,487,500 and RMB 654.38+RMB 2,000 recovered from Kangfu Lease (of which RMB 20,000 is calculated at the exchange rate of1September 27, 995/:8.31.92, Equivalent to USD 24,040,800 and RMB10,000) equivalent to USD 1.204 1.90 Xinyu Factory intentionally concealed the truth subjectively, and was at fault for the invalidity of the 89KFL/A063 lease contract, which objectively occupied USD 6,543,800+0.5 million for a long time and failed to repay it. Jiangxi SDIC participated in the signing of the 89KFL/A063 lease contract, and ordered Fuxing Lease to remit the money directly to Xinyu Factory. It was at fault for the capital loss of Kangfu Lease and should be liable for the principal that Xinyu Factory could not return. Kangfu Leasing failed to fulfill its responsibility of examination and supervision in the process of signing and performing the financial leasing contract, and was also responsible for the invalidity of the contract, and its request for returning the rent and delayed interest as agreed was not supported; Xinyu Factory separated all its effective assets, registered and established Xinyu Weaving and Printing Factory, and transferred its lease debt to Kangfu to Xinyu Weaving and Printing Factory. The wage weaving printing factory was merged by Dongdongbao Company as a whole, and Xinyu is one of the pilot cities of "optimizing capital structure" determined by the State Council. According to the second paragraph of Article 44 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "When an enterprise is divided or merged, its rights and obligations shall be enjoyed and assumed by the changed legal person" and the State Council Guofa No.99710.
The judgment of Jiangxi Higher People's Court is as follows:
1. Ganzhou dongdongbao industrial co., ltd will return the principal of China kangfu international leasing co., ltd. 100723 USD within ten days after the judgment comes into effect, and compensate China kangfu international leasing co., ltd. for its losses.
2. If the property of Dongdongbao Industrial Co., Ltd. is still insufficient to return the principal mentioned in the first paragraph above, Jiangxi International Trust and Investment Company shall be responsible for the principal that cannot be returned.
3. Case acceptance fee 102