Attorney Li Zhiyong represented XX Transport Company in a traffic accident property damage compensation case.
[Lead Attorney: Li Zhiyong] On April 15, 2005, a driver from XX Transport Company, driving a tractor-trailer, negligently collided with and damaged a transformer owned by XX Bureau in Shenzhen, located by the roadside. XX Bureau filed a lawsuit in court, seeking a judgment ordering the defendant XX Transport Company and Shenzhen XX Property Insurance Company to compensate for losses of 200,000 yuan. XX Transport Company retained attorney Li Zhiyong to defend the case. Through investigation, Attorney Li made thorough preparations and, in court, used solid evidence to refute the plaintiff's exaggerated claims of losses and counter the attempts by Shenzhen XX Property Insurance Company to shirk liability. The court adopted Attorney Li's arguments, determined the plaintiff's actual losses to be 74,869 yuan, and ruled that the defendant Shenzhen XX Property Insurance Company pay the plaintiff 74,869 yuan in compensation, with XX Transport Company bearing joint and several liability. The first-instance judgment took legal effect as prescribed, and ultimately XX Transport Company paid Shenzhen XX Property Insurance Company over 7,000 yuan as agreed.
Civil Judgment of the Yantian District People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province
(2006) Shenyan Fa Min Yi Chu Zi No. 173
Plaintiff Guangdong XX Company, Shenzhen XX Bureau, domiciled at No. 40 XX East Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen.
Person in charge: Jin XX, Director of the Bureau.
Agent: Yan XX, lawyer from Guangdong XX Law Firm,
Contact phone number: 1390220XXXX.
Entrusted agent Yu XX, lawyer at Guangdong XX Law Firm,
Contact phone number: 1 3923864XXXX.
Defendant Shenzhen XX Transportation Co., Ltd., domiciled at Room 7-XXX, Phase II, Nanfang XX Garden, Yantian District, Shenzhen.
Legal representative: Wen XX, a member of the company's board of directors.
Entrusted agent Li Zhiyong, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm,
Contact phone number 1 300881 0667.
Agent Wang XX, staff member of Shenzhen XX Transportation Co., Ltd.,
Contact phone number 2 6 3 3 XXXX.
Defendant XX Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, domiciled at Floor XX, Building A, XX Tower, XX Luofang Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen.
Person in charge: Jiang XX, General Manager of the company.
Entrusted agent Wang XX, lawyer at Guangdong XX Law Firm,
Contact phone number: l 38 2889XXXX.
Entrusted agent Wu XX, lawyer at Guangdong XX Law Firm,
Contact phone number 1 3 7 984 3XXXX.
The plaintiff, Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau (hereinafter referred to as "Shenzhen XX Bureau"), filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Shenzhen XX Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "XX Transportation Company"), and the co-defendant, XX Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch (hereinafter referred to as "XX Property Insurance Company"), regarding a dispute over compensation for property damage arising from a traffic accident. After the court accepted the case for filing and review, it applied the ordinary procedure in accordance with the law and held a public hearing on January 4, 2007. The plaintiff's authorized agents, Yan XX and Yu XX, the defendant XX Transportation Company's authorized agents, Li Zhiyong and Wang XX, and the co-defendant XX Property Insurance Company's authorized agent, Wang XX, appeared in court to participate in the proceedings. The case has now been concluded in the current instance.
The plaintiff, Shenzhen XX Bureau, alleges that on April 15, 2005, driver Yang XX, operating the YueB/406XX heavy semi-trailer tractor owned by defendant XX Transport Company, was traveling westbound on Shenyan Road. Upon reaching the intersection near the epidemic prevention station, the front of the vehicle collided with four pedestrians and their four bicycles on the roadside, and subsequently struck roadside greenery and a power transformer, resulting in damage to the plaintiff's power transformer in a traffic accident. After on-site inspection and evidence collection, the Yantian Brigade of the Shenzhen Municipal Court Traffic Police Detachment issued a "Traffic Accident Determination" concluding that driver Yang XX failed to drive safely in accordance with operational standards, violating Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the "Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Road Traffic Safety Law"), which constituted the fault leading to this accident, and he should bear full responsibility for it. This traffic accident caused severe damage to the plaintiff's outdoor ring main unit cabinet and ring main switchgear located in Shatoujiao, Yantian District, along with leakage of SF6 gas. To prevent a serious safety incident, the plaintiff immediately organized personnel for emergency rescue and repairs, resulting in direct economic losses exceeding RMB 200,000. Defendant XX Transport Company is the owner of the accident vehicle, and Yang XX, by failing to drive the vehicle in accordance with operational standards and colliding with the plaintiff's power facilities, should bear full compensation liability for the losses caused by the accident in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the plaintiff hereby files a lawsuit with the court, requesting the court to rule in accordance with the law: 1. Order the two defendants to jointly and severally compensate the plaintiff for the costs of repairing and rescuing the power supply facilities, amounting to RMB 200,000; 2. Order the defendants to bear all litigation costs of this case.
#p##e#
Defendant XX Transport Company stated in its written defense: The plaintiff did not notify the defendant when dismantling and replacing equipment on April 18, 2005, and the replaced ring main unit showed no external damage, making it impossible to prove that the absence of sulfur hexafluoride gas in the unit was directly related to the incident. The defendant does not accept the plaintiff's claims. In court, the defendant supplemented its defense as follows: 1. It does not accept the appraisal report issued by Shenzhen XX Asset Appraisal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as XX Asset Appraisal Company); 2. The defendant has purchased motor vehicle third-party liability insurance. According to Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, where a motor vehicle traffic accident causes personal injury or property damage, the insurance company shall compensate within the limits of the compulsory third-party liability insurance. The plaintiff may directly sue defendant XX Property Insurance Company. The defendant requests the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claims.
Defendant XX Insurance Company argued in its defense: 1. Although the court added it as a defendant, the plaintiff did not assert any claims against it, and therefore it is not obligated to compensate the plaintiff; 2. Regarding the plaintiff's property damage facts, damaged items, and extent of damage, apart from the evidence provided by the plaintiff itself, there is no other evidence to prove them. Moreover, XX Asset Appraisal Company explicitly stated in its appraisal report that it could not guarantee the accuracy and authenticity of the materials provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, in the absence of verification of the authenticity of the plaintiff's materials, the conclusions of that appraisal report lack a legal basis and are insufficient to be adopted; 3. That appraisal report was issued on November 10, 2006, a year and a half after the accident occurred. The originality and authenticity of the evidence had already been completely compromised, and the ring main unit inspected by the appraisers at the scene was one that had already been repaired and put into use, making it impossible to verify the original condition of the damage to the ring main unit; 4. The appraisal report issued by Shenzhen XX Road Traffic Accident Vehicle and Property Damage Assessment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as XX Appraisal Company), provided by Defendant XX Transportation Company, was prepared at the scene immediately after the accident occurred. That report contains detailed records of the on-site inspection and the damage conditions of the relevant equipment, and should serve as the basis for determining the facts of the plaintiff's property damage, the extent of damage, and the damaged items; 5. The insurance in this case is commercial insurance rather than compulsory insurance, and the insurance company should not bear civil liability as a defendant; 6. The insurance company should compensate in accordance with the insurance contract, with the deductible being 10% of the accident loss or 5,000 yuan, whichever is higher; 7. If the commercial insurance in this case were treated as compulsory insurance, according to the relevant provisions of compulsory insurance, the property damage compensation limit under compulsory insurance is only 2,000 yuan; 8. If the commercial insurance were treated as compulsory insurance, according to the provisions of compulsory insurance, litigation costs do not fall within the scope of insurance liability.
To support the facts asserted in its claims, the plaintiff submitted the following evidence to this court:
1. The Traffic Accident Determination Certificate issued by the Yantian Brigade of the Shenzhen Traffic Police Bureau proves that the traffic police brigade determined that the driver at fault in this case, Yang XX, bears full responsibility for this accident.
2. The ring main unit damage report and three photos issued by Shenzhen XXX Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "XXX Company") prove the damage to the plaintiff's transformers, ring main units, and other electrical facilities caused by the traffic accident for which Yang XX was responsible.
3. Legal work contact sheet, proving the direct losses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the traffic accident caused by the defendant.
A delivery note dated April 15, 2005, proves that the plaintiff replaced the damaged items.
5. The asset assessment report on property losses from the traffic accident issued by XX Asset Appraisal Company proves that the losses incurred by the plaintiff due to the traffic accident amount to 107,477 yuan.
The defendant, XX Transport Company, provides the following opinions on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff: No objection to Evidence 1; objection to Evidence 2, as the plaintiff did not provide XXX Company's qualification certificate for appraisal, and the photos clearly show that only the protective net was damaged, while the ring main unit was not; objection to the authenticity of Evidence 3, as the plaintiff replaced the ring main unit on April 18, 2005, rather than April 15, 2005, as recorded therein; objection to the authenticity of Evidence 4, as this document bears no official seal and contains no amount data; and non-acceptance of the appraisal conclusion in Evidence 5.
The cross-examination opinions of Defendant XX Insurance Company regarding the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are as follows:
1. No objection to Evidence 1;
2. Objections are raised regarding the authenticity, legality, and relevance of Evidence 2. The plaintiff has not provided any proof that XXX Company is qualified to issue appraisal conclusions, nor has the plaintiff applied for the company to appear in court as a witness. Therefore, this material cannot be used as evidence.
3. No objection to the authenticity of the photographs in Evidence 3, but objection to their probative value. From the photographs, it can only be seen that the guardrail of the electrical cabinet was damaged and the cabinet shell was slightly displaced, while the internal damage to the cabinet cannot be observed. Objection is also raised to the probative value of the legal work contact sheet therein, as the sheet is merely a unilateral work contact document provided by the plaintiff and cannot prove the items of damage or the amount of damage.
4. Objections are raised to the authenticity, legality, and relevance of Evidence 4, as the plaintiff failed to provide the original purchase invoices for the power grid cabinet and outdoor enclosure.
5. No objection is raised to the authenticity of Evidence 5, but objections are raised to its legality, originality, probative value, and relevance: First, the appraisal report explicitly states that the formula used for calculation is appraised value = replacement cost × condition factor (成新率), but the report does not specify the exact condition factor; Second, the appraisal report explicitly states that the relevant information and data were derived from materials provided by the plaintiff, and their accuracy and authenticity cannot be verified; Third, because the appraisers did not arrive at the scene when the equipment was replaced, the appraisal was based solely on the ring main unit damage report provided by XXX Company, and the appraisal report explicitly acknowledges that the authenticity of the report provided by XXX Company cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the conclusions of this appraisal report lack a lawful basis and hold no value; Fourth, the appraisal report does not explain the basis for the unit prices and appraised values of the ring main unit and its enclosure listed in the attached "Detailed Inventory of Traffic Accident Loss Items," and according to the photographs in the investigation report of XX Appraisal Company, the originally damaged ring main unit was model 9834s004 with a power rating of 12KV to 75KV, whereas the newly replaced ring main unit has a power rating of 24KV to 125KV. That is, the model, function, and value of the newly replaced ring main unit are entirely different from the original, and therefore this appraisal report has no evidentiary value.
#p##e#
The defendant, XX Transport Company, submitted the following evidence:
1. The "On-site Inspection and Investigation Report" (Report No. Yue B/406XX) issued by XX Appraisal Company proves that: 1) The company arrived at the scene promptly on the day of the incident for inspection, and determined the loss amount to be RMB 17,063; 2) The ring main unit in question showed no external damage, with only the switch protective gas pressure gauge indicating that there was no sulfur hexafluoride gas inside the switch; 3) The plaintiff did not notify Defendant XX Company to be present when replacing the equipment.
2. The "Supplementary Explanation of On-site Survey and Investigation Report for YueB/406XX" issued by XX Appraisal Company, along with the attached 14 photos, proves that: 1) The ring main unit showed no external damage, so it cannot be confirmed that sulfur hexafluoride gas was related to this incident; 2) The model of the newly replaced ring main unit differs from the old one, with the old unit rated at 12 kV to 75 kV and the new one at 24 kV to 125 kV.
3. Three witness statements provided by witnesses Qiao X, Fu XX, and Yang XX, proving that the plaintiff did not replace the ring main unit on the day of the incident, but only replaced it on April 18. Witnesses Qiao X and Fu XX appeared in court to testify and were cross-examined in court, while witness Yang XX did not appear in court to testify.
4. Insurance policy, proving that the defendant insured the accident vehicle with third-party liability insurance, with a coverage amount of 500,000 yuan.
The plaintiff's cross-examination opinions regarding the evidence submitted by the defendant XX Transport Company are as follows:
1. No objection to the authenticity of Evidence 1, but objection to the appraisal conclusion and the determined amount of loss; 2. No objection to the authenticity of Evidence 2; 3. Do not accept the content of the witness testimony; 4. No objection to Evidence 4.
The defendant XX Insurance Company has no objections to the evidence submitted by the defendant XX Transportation Company.
The defendant XX Insurance Company submitted copies of the insurance policy clauses as evidence to prove: 1. The relevant insurance is commercial insurance rather than compulsory insurance; 2. The insurance company shall bear compensation liability in accordance with the insurance contract; 3. Under the insurance contract, when the insured driver bears full responsibility for the accident, the insurance deductible is 10% of the accident loss or 5,000 yuan, whichever is higher.
The plaintiff's cross-examination opinions on the evidence submitted by defendant XX Insurance Company are as follows: No objection to the authenticity of this evidence, but objection to its relevance. This concerns the insurance contract claim relationship between the two defendants and is unrelated to the plaintiff.
Defendant XX Transport Company applied on the day of the trial for witness Chen XX to testify. According to the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Evidence in Civil Litigation, a party applying for a witness to appear in court to testify should make the application ten days before the expiration of the evidence submission period. Since the application by defendant XX Transport Company exceeded the time limit and the plaintiff did not consent to cross-examination, this court did not permit witness Chen XX to appear in court to testify.
This court, on its own authority, obtained relevant evidence from the traffic accident case file from the Yantian Traffic Police Brigade: 1. Road traffic accident scene diagram and on-site record; 2. Photographs of the traffic accident scene; 3. The account of the accident provided by the driver at fault, Yang XX; 4. The interrogation record of Yang XX conducted by the traffic police department.
The plaintiff has no objections to the evidence obtained by this court in the exercise of its authority.
The defendant XX Transport Company and XX Property Insurance Company raised no objections to the evidence obtained by this court on its own authority.
The authenticity is not disputed, but it is believed that the "damage to trees and the power supply bureau's transformer at the scene" mentioned in the on-site records refers to damage in a general sense.
Based on the evidence that has been examined and the statements and admissions made by the parties during the court hearing, this court finds the facts as follows: On April 15, 2005, while the defendant, XX Transport Company's driver Yang XX, was operating the company's Guangdong B/406XX heavy semi-trailer tractor in the course of his duties, he was driving westbound on Shenyan Road. When he reached the intersection near the epidemic prevention station, the front of the vehicle collided with four pedestrians and their four bicycles on the roadside, and then collided with roadside trees and an electrical transformer, resulting in a traffic accident that damaged the pedestrians, the trees, and the plaintiff's electrical transformer. The plaintiff's German-made high-voltage ring main unit's external protective mesh box was damaged, the entire ring main unit was displaced by approximately 20-30 cm, and the sulfur hexafluoride gas inside the unit, which serves to protect the high-voltage automatic switch, leaked completely. According to the "Traffic Accident Determination Certificate" issued by the Yantian Traffic Police Brigade, driver Yang XX failed to drive safely in accordance with operating standards, violating Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, which constituted fault leading to this accident, and he should bear full responsibility for the accident. After the accident, the plaintiff repaired and replaced the damaged equipment without notifying the defendant to send personnel to the scene. The power range of the original damaged ring main unit was 12kV-75kV, while the power range of the new replacement ring main unit was 24kV-125kV. After accepting the entrusted report, XX Appraisal Company conducted an on-site inspection at the accident scene on the day of the accident, and issued an inspection report, on-site investigation report, investigation report, and supplementary explanation on June 21, June 29, and July 9 of the same year respectively, ultimately determining the cost of replacing the damaged ring main unit to be RMB 74,869 yuan.
It was further found that Defendant XX Transport Company had purchased motor vehicle insurance for vehicle Yue B/406XX from Defendant XX Property Insurance Company, with a third-party liability insurance limit of RMB 500,000, and the insurance period was from January 18, 2005, to January 19, 2006.
We hold the opinion that:
I. Determination of Liability. China's General Principles of Civil Law clearly stipulate that citizens and legal persons who, through their fault, infringe upon the property of the state, a collective, or others shall bear civil liability. In this case, according to the "Traffic Accident Determination Certificate" issued by the Yantian Traffic Police Brigade, the driver Yang XX, by failing to drive safely in accordance with operational standards and violating the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law, was at fault in causing this accident and shall bear full responsibility for it. The traffic police department's determination of accident liability is reasonable, and this court accepts it. Since the defendant XX Transport Company is the registered owner of vehicle Yue B/406XX, and at the time of the accident, driver Yang XX was performing duties on behalf of the company, the defendant XX Transport Company shall bear the relevant civil liability for Yang XX's tortious act. Furthermore, because the defendant XX Insurance Company issued motor vehicle insurance, including third-party liability insurance, for the vehicle Yue B/406XX owned by the defendant XX Transport Company, and this insurance contract relationship was formed before July 1, 2006, when the "Regulations on Compulsory Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Insurance" formulated by the State Council had not yet taken effect, the defendant XX Insurance Company shall, in accordance with Article 50 of the Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, directly compensate the plaintiff within the limits of the third-party liability insurance, and the defendant XX Transport Company shall bear joint and several liability for compensation. The defendant XX Insurance Company's defense that the third-party liability insurance purchased by the defendant XX Transport Company is commercial insurance rather than compulsory insurance, that the plaintiff has not made any claim against it, and that it should not bear liability to the plaintiff is without legal basis, and this court does not accept it. Additionally, the defendant XX Insurance Company's argument that it should be entitled to a deductible according to the terms of the insurance contract it signed with the defendant XX Transport Company is not accepted by this court, as such a provision constitutes a contractual agreement rather than a statutory ground for exemption from liability and lacks legal basis.
II. Determination of the Specific Amount of Compensation.
#p##e#
Regarding the amount of property damage caused to the plaintiff by the traffic accident in this case, XX Appraisal Company's on-site survey and investigation report and supplementary explanations, and XX Asset Valuation Company's appraisal report, successively reached different appraisal conclusions. XX Asset Valuation Company's appraisal activity was conducted only one and a half years after the traffic accident in this case occurred, and the appraisal report explicitly stated in Special Matters Note (III) that, because the company's personnel were not present when the equipment was dismantled and replaced, they could not witness the specific damage to the ring main unit, and could only learn some of the circumstances and data of the accident from the materials provided by the plaintiff. The company could not guarantee the accuracy or authenticity of the data. It can thus be seen that, because the plaintiff failed to notify the relevant defendants to be present to confirm and replaced the equipment on its own, the appraisal conclusion made afterwards by XX Asset Valuation Company lacks a reliable and accurate basis. In addition, XX Asset Valuation Company adopted the replacement cost method for this appraisal, and the appraisal report explicitly stated in Special Matters Note (IV) that the company's appraisers found during the on-site inspection that the damaged property had all been repaired and put into use, with no abnormalities whatsoever. Moreover, because the new ring main unit now replaced by the plaintiff is of a different model from the original damaged old ring main unit, the replacement cost method was calculated based on the market price of brand-new products of the same type as the new ring main unit and with identical or similar functions, rather than based on the price of the original damaged old ring main unit. Therefore, the appraisal conclusion reached by XX Asset Valuation Company on that basis necessarily lacks objectivity and accuracy. Accordingly, this Court does not admit the conclusion by XX Asset Valuation Company concerning the appraised value of the property loss. In contrast, XX Appraisal Company conducted an on-site inspection on the very day the accident occurred, and shortly thereafter carried out a detailed examination of the replaced old ring main unit, with detailed records of the examination process. Therefore, this Court finds that the company's inspection report, on-site inspection, investigation report, and supplementary explanations are more objective and accurate. According to XX Appraisal Company's report, supplementary explanations, and on-site photograph records, the plaintiff's ring main unit guardrail was broken by the collision. Although the appearance was undamaged, the entire cabinet body had been displaced by 20-30 cm as a whole. Therefore, this Court determines that the complete leakage of the sulfur hexafluoride gas inside the ring main unit, which serves to protect the high-voltage automatic switch, has a causal relationship with the substantial overall displacement of the ring main unit cabinet body after it was struck by the肇事 vehicle. Meanwhile, in view of the analysis opinions on the repair of the ring main unit set forth by XX Appraisal Company in its supplementary explanations after consulting with electric power equipment experts from the Shenzhen Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision and the Quality and Technical Supervision Appraisal Institute, namely: 1) there are currently no platforms or means in China to test ring main units, and it is impossible to test whether repaired equipment meets process requirements; 2) foreign manufacturers also do not allow distributors or customers to repair the equipment without authorization, and unauthorized repair constitutes infringement, with liability for all direct losses and damage to product reputation caused by accidents resulting from repair quality; 3) if a fault occurs in high-voltage electrical equipment, the resulting disaster would be a regional catastrophic disaster, and no department or specific staff member could bear such a heavy responsibility; 4) in view of the above three reasons, in past cases where a ring main unit was indeed damaged, the practice has been complete replacement. This Court finds that the plaintiff's complete replacement of the ring main unit equipment is reasonable and necessary. This Court admits XX Appraisal Company's appraisal conclusion as to the cost required for replacing the equipment, namely that the plaintiff's loss caused by this accident amounts to RMB 74,869 yuan. The above compensation amount does not exceed the limit of the third-party liability insurance for motor vehicle No. 粤B/406XX underwritten by defendant XX Property Insurance Company.
In summary, in accordance with Article 106, Paragraph 2 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 76, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, Articles 50 and 51 of the Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 64, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
1. The total amount of compensation that plaintiff Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau should receive for property losses incurred in the traffic accident in this case is RMB 74,869 yuan;
Second: Defendant XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch shall, within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, pay the plaintiff Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau compensation in the amount of RMB 74,869 yuan;
III. The defendant, Shenzhen XX Transportation Company, shall bear joint and several liability for the compensation amount payable by the aforementioned defendant, XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Branch.
The case acceptance fee is RMB 5,510, of which RMB 2,063 shall be borne by the defendant XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, and RMB 3,447 shall be borne by the plaintiff Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau. The appraisal fee of RMB 2,000 shall be borne by the plaintiff Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau. The case acceptance fee has been prepaid by the plaintiff and will not be refunded by this court. The amount borne by the defendant XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch shall be paid directly to the plaintiff within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, and the defendant Shenzhen XX Transport Company shall bear joint and several liability for payment.
If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you may submit a statement of appeal to this court within fifteen days from the date of service of the judgment, along with six copies of the appeal, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province.
Presiding Judge: Jiang X
Acting Judge: Hu XX
Acting Judge Chen XX
Clerk: Huang X
People's Court of Yantian District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province
January 22, 2007
