Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Yangzhou Qishen Investment Development Co., Ltd., whose domicile is Chaoyang Ecological Park, Zhuanqiao Athena Road, Xiannv Town, Jiangdu District, Yangzhou City.
Legal Representative: Cai Xuan, general manager.
Authorized Agent: Wang Yi, lawyer of Jiangsu Cheng Tang Law Firm.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): * * *, male, born on, Han nationality, living in Jiangdu District, Yangzhou City.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): * * *, male, born on, Han nationality, living in Jiangdu District, Yangzhou City.
Agent ad litem: * * *, son of Appellee * * *.
Trial process
The appellant Yangzhou Qishen Investment Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qishen Company) refused to accept the civil judgment of Jiangdu District People's Court of Yangzhou City (20 10 12 3585 in the early Republic of China) because of the dispute over the house lease contract with the appellee. After the court accepted the case, a collegiate bench was formed according to law to conduct the trial. The case has now been closed.
Appellant's point of view
Shenqi Company's appeal request: to revoke the original judgment and change the judgment to support Shenqi Company's first-instance lawsuit request; First, the legal fees of the second instance shall be borne by * * * * * * * *. Facts and reasons:
(a) the facts of the first instance are unclear. 1. In this case, it is not clear whether the leased property is legal or not and what it is used for. 2. Qishen Company repeatedly told the first instance that the fire-fighting facilities of the leased house involved were unqualified, and requested the court to investigate the house involved, but the court of first instance did not conduct any investigation before the judgment, and * * * * * and * * * did not issue relevant legal certificates. According to the relevant laws and regulations, the lease contract of the house with unqualified fire protection facilities is invalid, and the applicable law in this case may be completely wrong. 3. The first trial found that Qishen Company didn't deliver the house until August 20 17 18, which obviously found the facts wrong. At the first court session on July 9, 2065438, Seven Gods Company explicitly handed over the key to * * * * * on October 20, 2065438. The house involved was rented out to others by * * * * * and * * * as early as August 7, 20 18. 4. In the store lease, the "store-passing fee" is used to make up for the decoration expenses of the original lessee or lessor, which is of a compensatory nature and does not belong to the transfer of consideration or the buying-selling relationship. The case of "over 500,000 shops" is such a case. Qishen believes that the house was renovated before, but it was renovated on a large scale after renting. In this case, due to the fault and breach of contract of * * * * * *, the contract was dissolved (the contract may be invalid), so * * * * * * * and * * * should return the store fees. 5. The liability for breach of contract involved in the termination of the lease contract was not determined in the first instance.
(2) The procedure of first instance is seriously illegal. 1. The court of first instance accepted the case on May 20 18 19, and made a judgment on October 20 165438125. The trial of first instance was overdue. 2. After filing a case in the court, the house involved in the case was still renovated, and the renovation cost can be appraised, but the first instance deliberately delayed the deadline and cooperated with * *