Attorney Jia Runlian Represented Shanghai XX Design Institute in a Contract Dispute Case

[Lead Attorney: Jia Runlian] Shanghai XX Design Institute accepted a commission from Shenzhen XX Investment Company to undertake interior and exterior decoration design for Shenzhen XX Haoting, including construction drawings for concealed works such as water supply, ventilation, electrical, and fire protection. After performing its obligations in accordance with the contract and completing 60% of the total contracted design work, the Design Institute was sued by the commissioning party, which sought a court order requiring the defendant Design Institute to return design fees of RMB 201,000, pay liquidated damages of RMB 292,500, and bear the case acceptance fee. The court of first instance held that the Design Institute had "delayed performance of the contract" and had unilaterally "entrusted the design of the water supply, ventilation, and electrical works to others," constituting breach of contract, and ordered the Design Institute to refund design fees of RMB 201,000, pay liquidated damages of RMB 52,500, and bear the acceptance fee of RMB 9,913. In 2005, the Design Institute filed an appeal. In her written submissions, Attorney Jia provided sufficient and forceful proof, based on both facts and legal principles, of the Design Institute's contract-compliant conduct and the other party's breach. Attorney Jia's legal opinion was fully supported by the court of second instance, and the final judgment held that Shenzhen XX Investment Company was in breach of contract. Through Attorney Jia's successful representation, the Design Institute avoided losses of more than RMB 500,000. This judgment has frequently been cited as a precedent in the adjudication of other cases.

(Attached: Judgment of Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court and Attorney Jia's Representation Statement)

Guangdong Province Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court

Civil Judgment

(2005) Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court Civil Division No. 2 Final Appeal Case No. 788

Appellant (defendant in the original trial) Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm, domiciled at Room XX, No. XX, Panyuan Road, Baoshan District, Shanghai.

Person in charge, Liu XX, managing partner.

Commissioned agent Jia Runlian, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.

Entrusted agent Chen XX, paralegal at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.

Appellee (Plaintiff in the original trial) Shenzhen XX Investment Co., Ltd., domiciled at Room XXXX, XXXX, Building XXXX, Renmin South Road, Shenzhen.

Legal Representative Song XX, Chairman of the Board.

Authorized agent Wang XX, legal counsel of Shenzhen XX Enterprise Co., Ltd.

Attorney ad litem Jiang XX, legal counsel of Shenzhen XX Enterprise Co., Ltd.

The defendant in the original trial, Liu XX, is the managing partner of Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm.

The defendant in the original trial, Zhang XX, is a partner at Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm.

Original trial defendant Wang XX, a partner of Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm.

The defendant in the original trial, Pan XX, is a partner of Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm.

The four defendants in the original trial above jointly appointed their litigation representative, Ye XX, an employee of Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm.

Appellant Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm (hereinafter referred to as "XX Design Firm") filed an appeal with this court against the civil judgment (2004) Shen Luo Fa Min Er Chu Zi No. 1796 rendered by the People's Court of Luohu District, Shenzhen, in a dispute over a design contracting contract with the appellee Shenzhen XX Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "XX Company") and the original trial defendants Liu XX, Zhang XX, Wang XX, and Pan XX. Upon acceptance of the appeal, this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law to hear the case. The trial of this case has now been concluded.

原审法院审理查明，XX设计所系合伙企业，合伙人为张XX、潘XX、汪XX、刘XX等。2003年1月1 5日，XX公司与XX设计所签订《室内装饰设计合同》，约定XX公司委托XX设计所对深圳市XX豪庭1–4层休闲中心作室内外装饰设计。设计内容包括室内装饰设计、室内空调、给排水、强弱电消防、建筑施工图设计等等;设计时间为七十五个工作日，从2003年1月1 5日至2003年3月3 1日;总设计费用和施工技术配合费共人民币750000元;如因XX设计所设计未达到合同规定的要求或未在协议约定的期限内完成设计，每延期1天，按总设计费的千分之三予以罚款，但延期时间最长不得超过十四天，否则，XX公司可终止合同，XX设计所返还全部费用。如因XX公司未按期付款，经XX设计所书面催告并宽限后XX公司仍未付款，XX设计所可终止合同，等等。

After the contract was signed, XX Company paid the initial design fee of RMB 201,000 to XX Design Institute in accordance with the contract. XX Design Institute delivered the graphic design drawings to XX Company on January 25, 2003. On March 16 of the same year, XX Company and XX Design Institute held a meeting, and the meeting minutes recorded that the functional layout of the major areas had been preliminarily confirmed on February 25, and the next stage of design could proceed; XX Design Institute was still required to make further modifications and improvements based on XX Company's needs and the actual circumstances. At the meeting, XX Company required XX Design Institute to produce color renderings and to produce construction drawings for concealed works such as plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and air conditioning within one month. On the 25th of the same month, XX Design Institute issued a design plan to XX Company, planning to deliver the decorative renderings on April 10, the plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and fire protection drawings on April 16, the floor, ceiling, and partition wall drawings on April 20, and the elevation construction drawings on May 10. However, XX Design Institute did not deliver the decorative renderings until April 12, and the plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and fire protection drawings until April 22; the floor, ceiling, partition wall drawings, and construction drawings were not delivered. On April 26, XX Company sent a letter to XX Design Institute, requiring it to produce the drawings as soon as possible in accordance with the design requirements specified in the contract. On June 18 of the same year, XX Company notified XX Design Institute in writing of the termination of the contract. During the court trial of this case, XX Design Institute did not submit evidence to prove that it had completed the floor, ceiling, and partition wall drawings, and admitted that it had transferred the plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and fire protection drawings to another party for design.

The court of first instance found that this case is a dispute over a work contract. The "Interior Decoration Design Contract" signed by XX Company and XX Design Institute represented the true intent of the parties, and its contents complied with legal provisions; it is a valid contract and binding upon both parties. Without the consent of XX Company, XX Design Institute transferred the design of an important component of the design work—the ventilation, water, electrical, and fire protection drawings—to others for design, which violated its contractual obligations as the contractor. During the performance of the "Interior Decoration Contract," XX Company and XX Design Institute modified the agreed date for delivering the work product, and XX Design Institute failed to deliver the work product within the agreed time, constituting a breach of contract. XX Company's claims for rescission of the contract, return of design fees, and payment of liquidated damages on the grounds of unauthorized subcontracting and delayed performance by XX Design Institute were well-founded and supported, except that the calculation period for the liquidated damages should not exceed 14 days. XX Design Institute is a partnership; the remaining four individuals, Zhang XX, Pan XX, Wang XX, and Liu XX, as partners of XX Design Institute, shall bear joint and several liability for the debts of XX Design Institute. Pursuant to Article 64 and Article 128 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 94, paragraph 1, item (3), Article 114, and Article 253, paragraph 1 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: 1. The "Interior Decoration Design Contract" signed between Shenzhen XX Investment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm is rescinded; 2. Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm shall, within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, return the design fee of RMB 201,000 to Shenzhen XX Investment Co., Ltd.; 3. Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm shall, within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, pay liquidated damages of RMB 52,500 to Shenzhen XX Investment Co., Ltd.; 4. Zhang XX, Pan XX, Wang XX, and Liu XX shall bear joint and several liability for the above debts of Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm; 5. Other claims of Shenzhen XX Investment Co., Ltd. are rejected.

#p##e#

Appellant XX Design Institute, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, filed an appeal with this Court, arguing: First, the first-instance judgment's factual findings were unclear. The first instance found that "the appellant, without the appellee's consent, transferred the design of the ventilation, water, electrical, and fire protection drawings to others for design," which is erroneous. Firstly, according to operating procedures and the regulations of the design department, the design of ventilation, water, electrical, and fire protection drawings should only commence after the renderings have been confirmed. In this case, the appellee, due to the SARS outbreak, no longer wished to proceed with the project and deliberately failed to approve the renderings designed by the appellant, while requesting the appellant to design the construction drawings and the ventilation, water, electrical, and fire protection drawings. In order to maintain the cooperative relationship between the two parties, but also not wanting to delay the design process, the appellant, with the appellee's consent, collaborated with other units to design the draft ventilation, water, electrical, and fire protection drawings for the appellee. Moreover, these ventilation, water, electrical, and fire protection design drawings were never actually applied. It is evident that the appellee's termination of the contract with the appellant on this ground cannot be established. Secondly, this firm is a qualified professional design firm approved by the Ministry of Construction. When undertaking a specific design project, some specialties require joint design, such as the ventilation, water, and electrical systems involved in this case, for which this firm does not have design qualifications. However, according to the regulations of the design department, joint design with qualified units is permissible, and this was agreed to by the appellee when the appellant and the appellee signed this contract. Therefore, the first instance's finding that the appellant breached the contract by mistaking the appellant's collaborative design of the ventilation, water, and electrical systems with others for subcontracting is erroneous. Second, the first instance's finding that the appellant delayed performance of its contractual obligations and should bear liability for breach of contract lacks factual basis. According to the operating procedures for architectural decoration design, any decoration design should first proceed with layout design; on the basis of the layout design drawings, renderings should be designed; and only after the renderings are confirmed can the construction drawings be designed. In this case, while the appellant was designing the layout plan for the appellee, the appellee repeatedly revised and replaced the drawings and design concepts, making it difficult to finalize the layout plan. The appellant successively produced more than ten sets of renderings for the appellee. Pursuant to the oral agreement between the two parties, the time for the appellee to review the drawings was not counted within the working days under the contract. Therefore, the first instance's determination that the appellant failed to deliver the work product within the agreed time, without ascertaining the true facts, is inconsistent with the facts and the judgment is erroneous. In summary, the non-performance of this design contract was caused by the appellee. The first-instance judgment's finding that the appellant breached the contract cannot be established. The appellant requests that the judgment be revoked in accordance with the law and the appellee's claims be dismissed.

Appellant XX Design Firm, during the second-instance investigation by this court, supplemented its grounds of appeal as follows: In accordance with the contract, after the renderings were produced, and per the payment schedule stipulated in the contract, the appellee should have made an additional payment of 134,000 yuan. The appellant maintains that the appellee had already confirmed the renderings but failed to pay this portion of the fee, constituting a prior breach of contract.

The appellee, XX Company, responded in its defense that: First, the appellant's assertion that "the first-instance finding that entrusting the design of the water supply and electrical diagrams to others was erroneous" is incorrect. Second, based on the performance time expressly agreed in the contract and the facts found by the first-instance trial in this case, it can be established that the time when the appellant submitted the drawings exceeded the contractually agreed time limit by more than 14 days, and the conditions for the appellee to request termination of the contract are satisfied. The appellee requests the court of second instance to uphold the original judgment in accordance with the law.

The stated opinions of the defendants in the original trial, Liu XX, Zhang XX, Wang XX, and Pan XX, are consistent with the appeal opinions of XX Design Institute.

On the basis of the facts ascertained in the first instance trial, this court additionally finds the following facts:

I. The "Design Essentials" in Article 3 of the "Interior Decoration Design Contract" signed by XX Company and XX Design Institute on January 15, 2003 stipulates: 1. The functional layout shall be reasonable, with scientific use of space, full consideration given to the possibilities of space utilization, and the distribution ratio of various service areas shall be suitable for business operational requirements; 2. The theme shall be prominent, with a unique decorative style possessing cultural and artistic flair, distinguishing it from similar business venues in Shenzhen and domestically; 3. The entrance lobby shall be luxurious and imposing, with reasonable pedestrian flow arrangement, and vertical pedestrian transportation shall fully consider the utilization of escalators; 4. Supporting facilities such as air conditioning, water treatment, natural gas, and electrical design shall be reasonably planned, achieving energy conservation and reducing operational costs; 5. The selection of decorative materials shall not only achieve the decorative effect but also consider reducing construction costs and minimizing investment; 6. The selection of furnishings such as furniture and artwork shall highlight a unique style, achieving the aesthetic beauty of spatial decoration; 7. Air conditioning and electrical lighting shall fully consider control based on pedestrian flow volume.

Article 7 "Total Fees and Payment Methods" of the Contract stipulates: 1. Party XX Company shall pay a total of RMB 750,000 for interior and exterior design fees and construction technical coordination fees, including RMB 670,000 for interior and exterior decoration design fees and RMB 80,000 for construction technical coordination fees; 2. Prior to design, RMB 201,000 shall be paid within 7 working days from the date of contract signing; RMB 134,000 shall be paid after the design plan is confirmed by Party XX Company; RMB 201,000 shall be paid upon completion of the construction drawing design; the remaining RMB 134,000 shall be paid within 7 working days after the project passes completion acceptance and the as-built drawings are delivered to Party XX Company; the coordination fee shall be paid on a monthly basis according to the construction progress of the design project.

Article 9, Clause 7 of the contract stipulates: "Party B (XX Design Institute) shall design in accordance with national and Shenzhen interior decoration standards"; Clause 9 stipulates: "XX Design Institute guarantees that it has the capability to perform this contract and guarantees that it possesses the qualifications for interior and exterior decoration design; otherwise, XX Design Institute shall bear the losses incurred by XX Company as a result thereof"; Article 11 stipulates: "XX Design Institute shall also guarantee that the design submitted for review can pass the review; otherwise, XX Design Institute shall refund all fees already paid by XX Company."

Article 10 "Professional Review" of the Contract stipulates: In accordance with the provisions of the mandatory national standard GB50327-2001 for the building interior decoration industry, the interior and exterior decoration drawings designed by XX Design Institute shall be submitted by XX Company to the original architectural design unit for review before construction may commence, and the review fees shall be borne by XX Company.

2. In the "XX Leisure Island Design Plan" sent by XX Design Institute to XX Company on March 26, 2003, it was proposed that the design plan, after adjustment, is as follows: the plumbing, electrical, and HVAC construction drawings will be issued on April 16; the decoration renderings will be issued on approximately April 10; for the decoration construction drawings, the floor, ceiling, and partition wall location drawings are planned to be issued on April 20, and the elevation construction drawings on May 10, etc.

三、 2003年4月26日，XX公司向XX设计所发出《关于要求切实履行合同的函》，函称：“XX天计所私自将风、水、电、消防图纸转包给深圳市XX设计有限公司设计，而非原来所说的交上海总院设计”。XX公司在本院二审调查中称，函中“上海总院”是指XX设计所，系区别于XX设计所深圳分部而言。该函中还称，经对空调、消防、给排水施工图纸进行会审后认为不符合审核等要求，决定将4月22日所交图纸退回，并要求XX设计所尽快出图，完成合同第三条约定的设计要点要求。

This Court holds that the design work contract relationship formed between XX Design Institute and XX Company was the true expression of the parties’ intent and is lawful and valid. The focus of this dispute lies in whether XX Design Institute constituted a breach of contract and in the determination of liability for such breach. The breaches of contract alleged by XX Company include the design not conforming to the contract requirements, delayed submission of design drawings, and unauthorized subcontracting of the design work. In this regard, this Court holds as follows: (1) With respect to XX Company’s assertion that the design drawings of XX Design Institute did not conform to the contract, this Court holds that, under the design standards agreed in the contract between the parties, the design of XX Design Institute was required to conform to the requirements of Article 3 of the contract regarding design points, to comply with the national and Shenzhen interior decoration design standards, and to ensure that the submitted design passed the review and confirmation of the original architectural design entity. First, the statements in Article 3 of the contract regarding design points are all descriptive subjective evaluation standards, with no objective, clear, or referable data standards, and are obviously uncertain and arbitrary. XX Company’s view that the design drawings of XX Design Institute did not conform to the design point requirements is its unilateral statement, which was not recognized by XX Design Institute, and no evidentiary basis supporting its evaluation was provided. Therefore, this ground of XX Company clearly lacks sufficient basis. Second, XX Company did not prove that XX Design Institute failed to design in accordance with national and Shenzhen interior decoration standards, or that it violated relevant industry regulations for building interior decoration design. Furthermore, XX Company also did not prove that it had submitted the design drawings of XX Design Institute to the original architectural design entity for review and that such review was not confirmed. In summary, the evidence submitted by XX Company in support of its claim that the design of XX Design Institute did not conform to the contract consists solely of its own unilateral letters, with no third-party authentication evidence. Accordingly, this claim of XX Company lacks sufficient basis and should not be supported. (2) With respect to XX Company’s assertion that XX Design Institute delayed the submission of design drawings, compared with the commitment made in the design plan issued by XX Design Institute, the delayed submissions mainly concerned the construction drawings for ventilation, water supply and drainage, and electrical works, which were delayed by six days. The decorative renderings were actually submitted on April 12, while the design plan stated that the drawings would be issued “around April 10”; therefore, the issuance date of the decorative renderings fell within the reasonable period expected by the parties and cannot be deemed a breach. In addition, it is true that XX Design Institute did not issue the plan, ceiling, and partition wall position drawings, and such failure indeed constitutes a breach. However, under the contract between the parties, XX Company was obliged to pay the design fees in accordance with the design progress. The contract provided that, after payment of the initial installment, the progress payment was to be “paid in the amount of RMB 134,000 after the design scheme is confirmed by XX Company.” As can be seen from the content of the meeting minutes dated March 16, 2003, the design scheme of XX Design Institute had already been basically approved by XX Company; had the design scheme not been approved, XX Company could not have agreed to continue with the subsequent design plan. After paying the initial design fee of RMB 201,000 to XX Design Institute, XX Company did not pay the subsequent progress payment, and therefore XX Company’s performance was also not in conformity with the contract. Given that XX Company’s breach occurred first, XX Design Institute was entitled to assert the defense of subsequent performance. XX Company, having itself breached the contract first, seeks to hold the other party liable for breach, which violates legal provisions and the principle of fairness; this Court does not support it. (3) With respect to XX Company’s assertion that XX Design Institute subcontracted the design without authorization, first, in the contract, XX Design Institute confirmed that it possessed qualifications for interior and exterior decoration design, but did not state that it possessed qualifications for ventilation, water supply and drainage, electrical, and fire protection design. Therefore, XX Design Institute did not intentionally conceal any matter from XX Company at the time of contract execution and had fulfilled its duty of honest disclosure. Second, in the letter XX Company sent to XX Design Institute on April 26, 2003, it stated: “XX Design Institute arbitrarily subcontracted the ventilation, water supply and drainage, electrical, and fire protection drawings to Shenzhen XX Design Co., Ltd., rather than having them designed by Shanghai Headquarters Institute as originally represented.” Viewed from its content, XX Company did not object to the subcontracting of the ventilation, water supply and drainage, electrical, and fire protection drawings; rather, it considered that XX Design Institute had subcontracted them to a non-agreed entity. Although

#p##e#

I. Uphold items 1 and 5 of the civil judgment (2004) Shen Luo Fa Min Er Chu Zi No. 1796 of the Luohu District People's Court of Shenzhen;

II. Set aside items 2, 3, and 4 of the Civil Judgment (2004) Shenluo Fa Min Er Chu Zi No. 1796 of the Shenzhen Luohu District People's Court;

The total case acceptance fees for the first and second instance in this case amount to RMB 19,826, to be borne by the appellee, Shenzhen XX Investment Co., Ltd. (The second-instance acceptance fee of RMB 9,913 has been prepaid by the appellant and will not be refunded. The appellee shall pay the appellant directly within ten days from the effective date of this judgment.)

This judgment is final.

Presiding Judge You XX

Judge Zheng XX

Acting Judge Chen XX

Guangdong Province Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (Seal)

May 30, 2006

Court Clerk Zhou XX (Concurrent)

Attorney's statement

Respected Presiding Judge and Judges:

Acting on the instructions of my client, Shanghai XX Architectural Design Firm, and serving as the appellant's representative, I hereby submit the following representation opinions based on the facts and the law:

1. The first instance's finding that "the appellant delayed performance of the contract and shall bear liability for breach of contract" is inconsistent with the facts.

First, the "Interior Decoration Design Contract" signed between the appellant and the appellee (hereinafter referred to as "the Contract") expressly provides that "within seven working days from the date of signing the Contract (January 15, 2003), the appellee shall pay RMB 201,000 to the appellant, and after the design scheme is confirmed by the appellee, an additional RMB 134,000 shall be paid to the appellant." However, after the Contract was signed, the appellee delayed in performing its obligations and did not pay the preliminary design fee of RMB 201,000 to the appellant until February 17, 2003. Where there was no guarantee of the appellee's performance capability, the appellant did not suspend its performance, but, acting in accordance with the principle of good faith, continued to discuss matters relating to XX Leisure Island with the appellee and commenced the design work. On March 25, 2003, the appellant sent a letter to the appellee scheduling delivery of the renderings for approximately April 10, 2003, which was confirmed by the appellee (see Appellee's First-Instance Evidence No. 3). The actual delivery date of the renderings by the appellant was April 12, 2003 (see Appellee's First-Instance Evidence No. 4). Therefore, the appellant bore no liability for breach of contract with respect to the delivery time of the renderings. Thereafter, in accordance with the Contract, the appellant requested the appellee to continue performing its obligations, namely to pay the design fee of RMB 134,000, but was refused by the appellee. Therefore, the appellee's delayed payment and refusal to pay the design fee are the primary reasons for the termination of the performance of the Contract by both parties.

Secondly, the Contract signed between the Appellant and the Appellee is obviously unfair to the Appellant. The contract stipulates that "if the Appellant's design fails to meet the requirements set forth in this Agreement, Party B may terminate the contract." However, the Agreement does not provide a clear standard for the Appellee's design requirements, and whether the design meets the requirements is determined solely by the Appellee's subjective judgment, which clearly contravenes the principle of equality of rights and obligations between the parties in a civil legal relationship. It is precisely because of this unfair clause in the contract that the Appellee repeatedly requested revisions to the design drawings.

The parties orally agreed that the time for design modifications would not be counted within the appellant's working days, and therefore the appellant and the appellee agreed to delay the delivery of the design drawings (see the appellee's Exhibits 3 and 4 from the first instance). Accordingly, the appellant did not bear any liability for breach of contract arising from delayed performance in the course of performing the contract executed by both parties.

II. The first instance court's finding that "the appellant, without the consent of the appellee, transferred the designed ventilation, water supply, and electrical systems to another party for design" constitutes an erroneous determination of the facts.

First, the appellant is a specialized architectural design firm approved by the Ministry of Construction, and its design qualifications do not include HVAC, plumbing, and electrical specialty design. Pursuant to Article 272 of the Contract Law and the Regulations on the Administration of Survey and Design for Construction Projects issued by the Ministry of Construction, when a project involves construction drawing design, the firm may conduct joint design with qualified entities. In this case, when both parties signed the Contract, the appellant had already clearly stated to the respondent that it did not possess professional design qualifications for the HVAC, plumbing, and electrical design items, and that designing them itself would violate the aforementioned laws and regulations. However, it could conduct joint design with qualified entities, and the respondent gave oral consent to this arrangement. Therefore, the appellant in this case did not commit any breach of contract by subcontracting the project at all.

Secondly, the appellant and the appellee expressly stipulated in the Contract: "After the design proposal is confirmed by the appellee, an additional payment of 134,000 yuan shall be made." However, after the design proposal was confirmed (see Exhibit 3 of the appellant's evidence at first instance), the appellee consistently failed to pay the corresponding fees and failed to perform its obligations expressly stipulated in the Contract. The appellee also requested the appellant to provide the air, water, and electrical drawings for its review and calculation, citing the need to prepare the construction budget. Although the appellee was the first to breach the contract, in order to support the appellee's normal operations and enable the Contract to continue to be performed, the appellant nevertheless, at the appellee's request, provided the air, water, and electrical drawings for its reference in preparing the budget. Therefore, it is unfair for the court of first instance to characterize the appellant's act of early performance as a breach of contract.

In summary, the appellant in this case has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the contract, completing 60% of the total contract design (which may be verified in accordance with relevant national documents), and there is no breach of contract whatsoever. However, the failure of the contract to be performed was due to the appellee's causes, and the responsibility lies with the appellee. The appellant hereby respectfully requests the court to take the facts as the basis and the law as the criterion, and to amend the judgment in accordance with the law.

Sincerely

Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City

Agent Jia Runlian (signature)

August 24, 2005