中华人民共和国吉林省高级人民法院民事判决书 (来源：英语学习门户网站EnglishCN.com)

　　（2003）吉民三终字第20号

　　上诉人（原审被告）：诸暨市飞达实业有限公司（原浙江省诸暨市飞达实业公司）。住所：浙江省诸暨市城关镇浣东北路60号。

　　法定代表人：宗光培，该公司总经理。

　　委托代理人：田大原，吉林衡丰律师事务所律师。

　　被上诉人（原审原告）：珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组。住所：珲春市。

　　代表人：金龙华，该清算小组组长。

　　被上诉人（原审原告）：韩国KOMARA农产会社。住所：韩国釜山广城市莲提区莲山千洞586－15.

　　法定代表人：姜大建，该社社长。

　　委托代理人：王文君，吉林由正律师事务所律师。

　　上诉人诸暨市飞达实业有限公司（以下简称飞达公司）与被上诉人珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组（以下简称清算组）、韩国KOMARA农产会社（以下简称农产会社）购销手套机合同纠纷一案，不服中华人民共和国吉林省延边朝鲜族自治州中级人民法院（2000）延州经初字第63号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。上诉人飞达公司委托代理人田大原，被上诉人清算组代表人金龙华，农产会社委托代理人王文君到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

　　原审法院查明：（一）1999年7月5日，珲春江南实业有限公司（以下简称江南公司）因未参加年检被珲春市工商行政管理局吊销营业执照，并被告知企业的债权债务由企业自行处理。珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局于2001年6月1日下发珲经发（2001）53号文件，决定江南公司成立清算小组。珲春市公安局治安科出具证明：证明清算组的公章已依法备案。江南公司原法定代表人姜南春于2000年6月8日出具书面说明：1、江南公司由其提议并同意成立清算小组，其委托宋明男为清算小组组长，金龙华任副组长，吕相基、李顺子、金昌浩为成员；2、其同意由金龙华负责清算工作及一切法律实施事宜。因此，清算组成立的程序合法，应负责江南公司的债权债务清理工作，具有作为诉讼原告的主体资格。

　　（二）1998年5月6日，江南公司、农产会社共同作为乙方与作为甲方的飞达公司签订了全自动手套机购销合同。合同约定：甲方向乙方订购日产“松国”牌或“刀金”牌F7型－F10型全自动手套机680台（具体供应计划凭韩方传真件为准）；交货时间从1998年5月8日起至1999年1月8日止；价格按FOB图们火车站交货价每台17，000元人民币；交货地点为图们火车站；付款方式机器运抵图们火车站后付清全部货款；运输方法及费用负担，铁路运费由甲方负担；违约责任，如单方违约，违约方必须向对方赔偿标准为未执行部分合同总额的20％的违约金。该合同由甲方飞达公司加盖单位公章，法定代表人宗光培签名，乙方江南公司代理人金龙华签名，农产会社加盖单位公章、代表人姜大建签名。合同签订后，原告方按约定给被告发运了价值为793，573元的全自动手套机及部分配件。飞达公司陆续给付了原告手套机款471，266元，现尚欠原告方手套机款322，307元未付。珲春海关进口关税专用缴款书及珲春边境贸易公司代理进口证明能够证明：1998年8月10日，由珲春边境贸易公司代江南公司从韩国进口57台手套编织机，江南公司于1998年8月12日向珲春边境贸易公司交纳了7，700元的进口手套机的代理费、办证费、商检费、口岸费等。在合同履行期间，飞达公司的法定代表人宗光培与江南公司的委托代理人金龙华的多次往来信件证明，按照上述购销合同，双方已实际履行。故由二原告与被告签订的此全自动手套机购销合同系双方当事人真实意思表示，该合同为有效合同。另外，为履行合同，江南公司为飞达公司发运手套编织机已垫付运费4，841.32元。

　　（三）1998年12月18日，飞达公司作为甲方与作为乙方的江南公司签订和解协议。协议称：兹有甲方于97年7月24日向乙方购买乙方合资企业使用全套织袜机设备，98年5月6日签订购买乙方与韩国釜山KOMARA农产会社合资经营的进口韩产全自动手套机，两份合同在履行期间，由于种种原因，使合同不能按约履行，双方在有关问题上出现意见分岐，导致乙方向吉林省延边州中级人民法院提起诉讼。现经双方法人代表友好协商，一致达成和解协议如下：1、袜机总款按935，000元计算，除已付给乙方货款及甲方在销售期间垫付的有关费用外，甲方一次性再付给乙方袜机款18万元；2、手套机、卷边机及配件总额按845，308元计算，除甲方已付给乙方手套机、卷边机及配件款765，308元外，甲方一次性再付给乙方人民币80，000元（捌万元整）；3、以上二项总计甲方需付给乙方一次性人民币贰拾陆万元整（260，000元）；4、乙方在签订本协议时，必须立即办理法院撤诉手续及有关财产解冻手续，同时将吉林省延边州中级人民法院的撤诉裁定书传真给诸暨市人民法院代为送达，并将原件用特快专递邮寄甲方；5、本协议经甲、乙双方法人代表签字即生效，生效后双方都不得用任何理由和借口向对方提出异议，今后双方互不追究任何责任；6、协议签订后，甲方凭延边州中级人民法院撤诉裁定书一次性付给乙方全部货款计 260，000元（贰拾陆万元整）。该协议由飞达公司法定代表人宗光培签名并加盖公章，江南公司法定代表人姜南春签名并加盖公章。1998年12月22日，姜南春给飞达公司出具收条“今收到飞达公司袜子机及手套机款共计24.5万元，至此与飞达公司的两机款全部收完，合同从此终止，款已结清”，姜南春在收条上签名并加盖了江南公司的公章。上述协议及收条的形成，没有原手套机购销合同的另一方农产会社的参与，农产会社也不知情，未同意、未授权。此和解协议及收条系江南公司与飞达公司擅自达成的，侵害了购销合同一方农产会社的利益，故该协议属单方行为，为无效协议。江南公司因无效协议所取得的24.5万元人民币应返还给飞达公司。因江南公司与飞达公司对和解协议的达成均存在过错，由此因和解无效存在的损失由协议双方各自承担相应的责任。

　　（四）因农产会社未发运的40台手套机是农产会社个人行为，与飞达公司不直接发生关系，全自动手套机购销合同中对此也未约定，飞达公司并不知农产会社对手套机进行管理等情况，况且农产会社没有足够的证据证明627，250元人民币损失的由来，故农产会社的此项诉讼请求不予支持。

　　原审法院认为：二原告与被告所签订的全自动手套机购销合同为有效合同，被告方应给付拖欠的货款并承担违约责任。二原告要求被告给付322，307元及违约金64，461元，运费4，841.32元的主张本院予以支持；原告农产会社要求被告赔偿627，250元人民币损失的主张无事实依据，本院不予支持。被告方提出的原告无诉讼主体资格，1998年12月18日双方已达成和解协议对手套机、袜子机款已结清，应驳回原告诉讼请求的主张不成立，不予支持。依照《中华人民共和国经济合同法》第六条、第二十九条第一款、第三十一条、第三十二条、《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百零六条、第六十一条第一款之规定，判决：一、飞达公司于本判决生效之日起十日内偿付清算组、农产会社全自动手套编织机及配件款322，307元，运费 4，841.32元，并支付违约金64，461元，合计391，609.32元；二、清算组于本判决生效之日起十日内返还飞达公司24.5万元人民币。案件受理费20，666元，由被告负担8，384元，由原告农产会社负担11，282元。

　　飞达公司上诉称：1、清算组在一审中始终未提交其依法成立的有效证据，而所谓的珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局的文件又无法律效力，故清算组作为原告的诉讼主体错误；2、农产会社与飞达公司1998年5月 6日签订的全自动手套机购销合同无效。理由是：（1）根据最高人民法院《关于适用<涉外经济合同法>若干问题的解答》第三条第二款“订立合同的我国当事人未经国家主管机关批准授予对外经营权的，合同无效”的规定，因飞达公司无对外贸易经营权，故该合同无效。（2）根据《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》第九条的规定，上诉人飞达公司未经国务院对外经济贸易主管部门许可，且无明确的对外贸易经营范围，故双方所签合同因违反国家法律强制性规定而无效。（3）根据最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国合同法>若干问题的解释》（一）第十条“当事人超越经营范围订立合同，人民法院不因此认定合同无效。但违反国家限制经营、特许经营以及法律、行政法规禁止经营规定的除外”的规定，对外贸易属国家授权特许经营，故上诉人与农产会社所签的合同无效。

　　3、江南公司与飞达公司1998年5月6日签订的全自动手套机购销合同有效，该合同缔约方应排除农产会社，合同项下的内容应该受到法律保护。

　　4、本案事实上的买卖关系，系江南公司自农产会社买入手套机之后卖给飞达公司，故一审法院在事实认定上是错误的。

　　5、飞达公司与江南公司签订的和解协议合法有效，飞达公司已因该协议付出了履行此合同的全部对价，付款责任应予解除。

　　6、原审程序违法，二被上诉人在原审时只是缓交诉讼费，缓交日期截止到2002年11月12日之前，而二被上诉人到目前为止仍未交纳诉讼费，原审法院在没有收到诉讼费的情况下作出的判决是违法的。

　　7、原审对清算组和农产会社之间的具体权利义务关系没有审理清楚。

　　8、原审判决对本案争议数额认定不清。

　　清算组答辩称：1、清算组的成立是经董事会研究决定，以合法的程序向珲春市工商行政管理局外事科、珲春边境经济合作区经济发展局、珲春市公安局治安科申报批准的，目的是清算清理债权债务。2、根据1998年5月6日三方签订的全自动手套机购销合同第四条、第五条、第六条、第七条的约定，飞达公司不需要外经贸部批准的进、出口营业执照，故1998年5月6日三方签订的合同是一般的国内购销合同，不是进出口购销合同，应认定有效。3、1998年12月18日，江南公司法人代表姜南春与飞达公司签订的和解协议属无效协议。

　　农产会社答辩称：一审判决认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，请求二审法院驳回上诉，维持原判。

　　综合上诉人的上诉及被上诉人的答辩，并征询各方当事人的意见，本案争议的焦点问题是：1、清算组是否具备本案的诉讼主体资格？2、三方当事人在1998年5月6日签订的全自动手套机购销合同是否有效？3、江南公司和飞达公司1998年12月18日签订的和解协议是否有效？4、原审法院是否存在程序违法之处？各方当事人在二审中所举的证据与一审完全相同，均没有新证据提供，故本院二审查明的事实与一审相同。针对上述焦点问题，本院综合评判如下：

　　（一）清算组是否具备本案的诉讼主体资格？

　　被上诉人清算组认为其成立是合法的，故具备本案的诉讼主体资格，并提供了珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局珲经发[2001]53号“关于珲春江南实业有限公司成立清算小组的批复”，证明清算组是经过国家对外经济贸易主管部门批准后成立的。

　　上诉人飞达公司对清算组提供的珲经发[2001]53号文件的真实性没有异议，但认为江南公司是私营企业，应由董事会成立清算小组，并提供了珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局珲经发[1993]125号“关于珲春江南实业开发公司与韩国唯一纤维会社在边境经济合作区兴建珲春江南实业有限公司的申请批复”和江南公司董事会名单，证明江南公司是私营企业，故清算组不具备本案的诉讼主体资格，应由董事会成员作为本案的诉讼主体参加诉讼。

　　被上诉人清算组质证称，对上诉人提供的珲经发[1993]125号文件和江南公司董事会名单的真实性没有异议，但江南公司是中外合资企业，而不是上诉人所说的私营企业，珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局有权成立清算小组。

　　本院认为：江南公司是由中国珲春江南实业开发公司与韩国唯一纤维会社合资成立的，根据上诉人提供的珲经发[1993]125号文件和被上诉人清算组一审时提供的江南公司的企业法人营业执照，足以证明江南公司是中外合资经营企业，而非上诉人飞达公司所称的私营企业。根据《中华人民共和国中外合资经营企业法》第三条及《外商投资企业清算办法》第二条、第三条第二款的规定，珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局作为国家对外经济贸易主管部门，有权决定中外合资企业江南公司成立清算小组。综上，清算组的成立符合法律规定，具备本案的诉讼主体资格，故上诉人飞达公司主张清算组不具备本案诉讼主体资格的上诉理由不能成立。

　　（二）江南公司、农产会社和飞达公司于1998年5月6日签订的《全自动手套机购销合同》是否有效？

　　上诉人飞达公司认为，本案事实上的买卖关系，是江南公司自农产会社买入手套机后卖与飞达公司，飞达公司的买入价和江南公司买入价之间存在差异，因飞达公司未经国家对外经济贸易主管部门许可，没有对外经营权，故其同农产会社签订的合同因违反国家法律的强制性规定而无效，但并不影响飞达公司同江南公司之间买卖合同的效力，该合同的缔约方应排除农产会社，从而认定江南公司同飞达公司间的买卖合同合法有效，合同项下的内容应受到法律保护，并提供了珲春海关进出口关税专用缴款书、珲春边境贸易公司代江南公司从韩国进口57台手套编织机的证明以及江南公司向珲春边境贸易公司交纳了进口手套机的代理费、办证费、商检费、口岸费、海关关税等税费的证据。

　　被上诉人农产会社和清算组认为本案中涉及的《全自动手套机购销合同》是江南公司、农产会社、飞达公司三方协商签订的，其中所约定的交货和验货地点均在中国境内，故该合同不应视为涉外经济合同，而是一般的国内购销合同，故应为有效合同。

　　本院认为：飞达公司作为甲方同乙方农产全社、江南公司于1998年5月6日签订的《全自动手套机购销合同》中约定的标的物“全自动手套机”是由作为合同一方主体的韩国企业农产会社提供的，虽然合同中约定的交货和验货地点均在中国境内，但并不能以此将该合同认定为“一般的国内购销合同”，而应按照合同的主体及客体认定该合同为进出口购销合同，由该合同所产生的纠纷应适用《中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法》及相关的司法解释。根据最高人民法院《关于适用<涉外经济合同法>若干问题的解答》第三条第二款“订立合同的我国当事人未经国家主管机关批准授予对外经营权的，该合同应当确认无效”以及《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》第十三条“没有对外贸易经营许可的组织或者个人，可以在国内委托对外贸易经营者在其经营范围内代为办理其对外贸易业务”的规定，由于飞达公司和江南公司均不具有对外贸易经营权，不能与外商直接签订有关货物买卖合同，故本案中所涉及的《全自动手套机购销合同》因合同主体不合格而无效。

　　（三）江南公司和飞达公司于1998年12月18日签订的和解协议是否有效？

　　上诉人飞达公司认为本案争议的全自动手套编织机是由江南公司向农产会社买进后再卖给飞达公司的，上诉人飞达公司与江南公司间存在直接的买卖关系，而和农产会社间没有直接的买卖关系，故江南公司同飞达公司间签订的和解协议合法有效。

　　被上诉人清算组和农产会社均主张飞达公司同江南公司1998年12月18日签订的和解协议无效，理由是该协议没有《全自动手套机购销合同》的一方主体农产会社参加。

　　本院认为：江南公司与飞达公司于1998年12月18日签订的“和解协议”中共涉及两个方面的法律关系，一个是江南公司同飞达公司就双方间因买卖织袜机而拖欠的袜机款所达成的和解协议；另一个是江南公司同飞达公司就履行本案中所涉及的《全自动手套机购销合同》而产生的纠纷所达成的和解协议。由于本案处理的是飞达公司同江南公司、农产会社间因买卖全自动手套机而产生的纠纷，故飞达公司同江南公司在“和解协议”中关于“飞达公司应给付江南公司袜机款18万元”的约定，因属另一法律关系，与本案无关，对此条款的效力，本院不予评判：“和解协议”中关于“飞达公司应给付江南公司手套机、卷边机及配件款8万元”的约定，是江南公司同飞达公司就履行本案中所涉及的《全自动手套机购销合同》而产生的纠纷所达成的和解协议，从《全自动手套机购销合同》的签订和履行情况来看，首先，《全自动手套机购销合同》中并未约定货款具体应给付江南公司还是农产会社，且江南公司和农产会社在二审中均主张货款只要给付了其中的一方，就应视为给付；其次，飞达公司不具有对外贸易经营权，实际上其亦未与农产会社发生直接的买卖关系，而是由江南公司委托了有对外贸易经营权的珲春边境贸易公司从韩国进口了57台手套机，并向珲春边境贸易公司交纳了相关的费用，然后再由江南公司卖给飞达公司，即使飞达公司没有全部给付货款，农产会社也只能依据外贸合同向珲春边境贸易公司和江南公司主张权利，而不能向飞达公司主张权利；而江南公司则可以依据其同飞达公司间实际发生的买卖关系向飞达公司主张权利。综上，由于江南公司对飞达公司拖欠的手套机款有处分的权利，而农产会社又没有直接向飞达公司主张货款的权利，因此，江南公司同飞达公司就手套机款所达成的和解协议，应认定有效。由于江南公司同飞达公司就拖欠的手套机款已达成和解协议，并已实际履行完毕，故江南公司再对此提起诉讼，没有法律依据。

　　（四）原审法院判决是否违反法定程序？

　　原审法院在未收取江南公司和农产会社诉讼费的情况下作出判决，虽有不妥之处，但不属于法定的程序违法，故上诉人以此主张原审判决程序违法的理由不能成立。

　　综上，清算组和农产会社请求飞达公司给付货款并赔偿损失的主张，没有法律依据，其诉讼请求无理，应予驳回。原审判决认定事实清楚，但适用法律有不当之处。根据《中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法》第二条、最高人民法院《关于适用<涉外经济合同法>若干问题的解答》第三条第二款以及《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第一款第（二）项之规定，判决如下：

　　一、撤销中华人民共和国吉林省延边朝鲜族自治州中级人民法院（2000）延州经初字第63号民事判决；二、驳回珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组、韩国KOMARA农产会社的诉讼请求。

　　一、二审案件受理费41，332元，由珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组、韩国KOMARA农产会社负担。

　　本判决为终审判决。

　　审 判 长 王晓东

　　代理审判员 王东林

　　代理审判员 姜 涛

　　2003年6月10日

　　本件与原本核对无异

　　书 记 员 牛 锋

　　Jilin Province Higher Peoples Court

　　of

　　the People's Republic of China

　　Civil Judgment

　　（2003） Ji Min San Zhong Zi No. 20

　　Appellant （defendant in the first instance）： Feida Industrial Co., Ltd. of Zhuji City （former Feida Industrial Company of Zhuji City, Zhejiang Province）, 60 Huandongbei Road, Cheng'guan Town, Zhuji City, Zhejiang Province.

　　Legal representative： Zong Guangpei, general manager of the company.

　　Attorney ： Tian Dayuan, lawyer of Jilin Hengfeng Lawyers Office.

　　Appellee （plaintiff in the first instance）： Liquidating Group of Jiangnan Industrial Co., Ltd. of Hunchun City.

　　Representative： Jin Longhua, leader of the Liquidating Group.

　　Appellee （plaintiff in the first instance）： KOMARA Agricultural Industry Company of South Korea, 586-15 Lianshanqian Dong, Lianti District, Gangsoe City, Pusan, The Republic of.

　　Legal representative： Jiang Dajian, president of the company.

　　Attorney ： Wang Wenjun, lawyer of Jilin Youzheng Lawyers Office.

　　Appellant Feida Industrial Co., Ltd. of Zhuji City （hereafter referred to as Feida Co.） refused to accept the （2000） Y.Z.J.C.Z. No. 63 civil decision regarding the glove machine purchases and sales contract dispute between Feida Co and the appellees Liquidating Group of Jiangnan Industrial Co., Ltd. of Hunchun City （hereafter referred to as Liquidating Group） and KOMARA Agricultural Industry Company of The Republic of （hereafter referred to as KOMARA Co.） made by Intermediate Peoples Court of Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Yanbian, Jilin Province, the People's Republic of China as final and lodged an appeal to the Court. After accepting the case, the Court formed a collegial panel and opened a court session publicly. Attorney agent Tian Dayuan, authorized by the appellant Feida Co, Jin Longhua, representative of the appellee Liquidating Group and attorney agent Wang Wenjun, authorized by KOMARA Co., participated the court session and made their arguments. This case is decided now.

　　The first instance court identified facts by trial as follows： ⑴ On July 5, 1999, the business license of Jiangnan Company was revoked by Administration for Industry and Commerce of Hunchun City without participating in the annual examination and the company was informed that the credit and debt should be settled by itself. On June 1, 2001, Economic Development Bureau of Border Economic Cooperation Zone of Hunchun City issued the （2001） H.J.F. No. 53 document that determined Jiangnan Company to form a liquidating group and define members of the group and their duties. Public Order Division of Public Security Bureau of Hunchun City issued a confirming documentation certifying that： the official seal of the Liquidating Group had been put on file according to law. Jiang Nanchun, former legal representative of Jiangnan Company, submitted a written document explaining that： 1. Jiangnan Company, proposed by him, consented to form the Liquidating Group and appointed Song Mingnan as leader of the group, Jin Longhua as deputy leader, Lu Xiangji, Li Shunzi and Jin Changhao as members of the group； 2. He agreed that Jin Longhua should be responsible for the liquidation work and all related legal affairs. Therefore, the Liquidating Group that was formed in accordance with the legal procedure and shall be responsible for settlement of the credit and debt of Jiangnan Company has the qualification of subject of action. ⑵ Parties B Jiangnan Company and KOMARA Co. singed the fully automatic glove machine purchases and sales contract with Party A Feida Co. on May 6, 1998. The contract stipulated that： Party A shall order 680 sets of Songguo or Daojin brand F7-F10 type fully automatic glove machines made in Japan from Parties B （for the detailed plan of supply, refer to the fax from South Korea）； the time of delivery was from May 8, 1998 to January 8, 1999； RMB￥17000 per set F.O.R. Tumen Railway Station； place of delivery： Tumen Railway Station； full payment on delivery after arrival of the machines at Tumen Railway Station； the railway freight shall be borne by Party A； in case either party breaches the contract, the party breaching the contract shall compensate the other party with 20% of the total price of the part of the contract that is not performed as fine for breach of contract. The contract was sealed by Party A and signed by Zong Guangpei, legal representative of Party A, Jin Longhua, agent of Party B Jiangnan Company, sealed by KOMARA Co. and signed by Jiang Dajian, representative of KOMARA Co. After the contract was signed, the plaintiff delivered fully automatic glove machines and parts worth RMB￥793, 573 to the defendant. Feida Co. paid RMB￥471, 266 to the plaintiff for the glove machines and owes the plaintiff RMB￥322, 307. The special import duty pay-in warrant of Hunchun Customs and the agent import certificate of Hunchun Border Trade Company can certify that： Hunchun Border Trade Company which acted as an agent of Jiangnan Company imported 57 sets of glove knitting machines from South Korea on August 10, 1998 and Jiangnan Company paid Hunchun Border Trade Company RMB￥7700 for agency commission, certification, commodity inspection, port management and others. During performance of the contract, the correspondence between Zong Guangpei, legal representative of Feida Co. and Jin Longhua, authorized agent of Jiangnan Company, can certify that both parties have actually fulfilled the purchase and sales contract. Therefore, the fully automatic glove machines purchase and sales contract signed by and between the two plaintiffs and the defendant is the declaration of will of both parties and is a valid contract. In addition, to fulfill the contract, Jiangnan Company paid Feida Co. RMB￥4, 841.32 of freight in advance for the shipment of the glove machine. ⑶ Party A Feida Co. and Party B Jiangnan Company signed a reconciliation agreement on December 18, 1998. The agreement stated that： the contract on Party A's purchase of the complete-set footwear machine used by Party B's joint venture from Party B was signed by and between both Party A and Party B on July 24, 1997 and the contract on purchase of the fully automatic glove machines imported from South Korea that were operated by the joint venture between Party B and KOMARA Co., Pusan, South Korea, was signed by and between both parties on May 6,1998. During execution of the two contracts, the contracts couldn't be performed for reasons. Both parties had a dispute about relevant issues. Then Party B filed a suit in Intermediate Peoples Court of Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Yanbian, Jilin Province. Now both parties came to a reconciliation agreement through friendly negotiation between legal representatives of both parties as follows： 1. The total price of the footwear machines is calculated as RMB￥935,000, and Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥180,000 in lump sum for the footwear machines in addition to the money paid to Party B and the money paid by Party A in advance during sales； 2. The total price of the glove machines, seaming machines and fittings is calculated as RMB￥845, 308, and Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥80, 000 （eighty thousand yuan only） in lump sum in addition to RMB￥765, 308 paid by Party A for the glove machines, seaming machines and fittings； 3. Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥260, 000 （two hundred and sixty thousand yuan only） in lump sum of the above two items； 4. Party B shall immediately go through the formalities of withdrawing the action and unblocking the assets after the agreement is signed and at the same time, fax the non-pros award of Intermediate Peoples Court of Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Yanbian to Peoples Court of Zhuji City and send the original via EMS to Party A； 5. The agreement shall come into force after it is signed by legal representatives of both parties. Neither party shall make an objection against the other party for any reason or in any excuse. Neither party shall affix the responsibility of the other party； 6. After the agreement is signed, Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥260, 000 （two hundred and sixty thousand yuan only） in lump sum by the non-pros award of Intermediate Peoples Court of Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Yanbian. The agreement was signed by Zong Guangpei, legal representative of Feida Co., with the official seal of the company affixed to it, and signed by Jiang Nanchun, legal representative of Jiangnan Company, with the official seal of the company affixed to it. On December 22, 1998, Jiang Nanchun gave Feida Co a receipt that “ we received RMB￥245, 000 from Feida Co. for the footwear machines and glove machines. So far, all the money for the two kinds of machines has been received in full. The contract shall be terminated now, with the account settled.” Jiang Nanchun added his signature and affixed the official seal of Jiangnan Company to the receipt. KOMARA Co., the other party of the former glove machine purchases and sales contract, didn't participate in, know, consent to, or authorize the formation of the above agreement and receipt. The reconciliation agreement and receipt were reached by and between Jiangnan Company and Feida Co. without authorization, damaging the interest of KOMARA Co., the other party of the purchases and sales contract, so it was a unilateral act and the agreement was invalid. Jiangnan Company shall return RMB￥245, 000 received according to the invalid agreement to Feida Co. As both Jiangnan Company and Feida Co. had faults in reaching the reconciliation agreement, both parties shall take their respective responsibility for the losses arising from it. ⑷ That KOMARA Co. didn't deliver 40 sets of the glove machines was the individual act of KOMARA Co., which didn't have a direct relation with Feida Co., or was not stipulated in the fully automatic glove machine purchases and sales contract. Feida Co. didn't know KOMARA Co.'s management of the glove machine and other related situations and KOMARA Co. didn't have enough evidence of the cause of the loss of RMB￥627, 250, so the claim of KOMARA Co. couldn't be supported.

　　The first instance court concluded that： the fully automatic glove machines purchase and sales contract singed by and between the two plaintiffs and defendant was valid and the defendant shall pay the money owed for purchase the goods and take the liability for breach of contract. The two plaintiffs' claim that the defendant shall pay RMB￥322, 307, RMB￥64, 461 of fine for breach of contract and RMB￥4, 841.32 of freight is supported by the Court； the plaintiff KOMARA Co.'s claim for compensation of damages of RMB￥627, 250 on the defendant has no factual evidence, and cannot be supported by the Court. The claim made by the defendant that the plaintiffs' claim should be rejected, as they have no qualification of subject of action, and the, money for purchase of the glove machines and footwear machines had been settled in the reconciliation agreement reached by and between both parties on December 18, 1998, is untenable, and cannot be supported by the Court. In accordance with the stipulation of Article 6, Article 29 Section 3, Articles 31 and 32 of the Economic Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and the stipulation of Article 106 and Article 61 Section 1 of General Principles of the Civil Law of the Peoples Republic of China, it ordered as follows： 1. Feida Co. shall pay the Liquidating Group and KOMARA Co. RMB￥322, 307 for the fully automatic glove machines and fittings, RMB￥4, 841.32 of freight and RMB￥64, 461 of fine for breach of the contract, totaling RMB￥391, 609.32 within ten days from the date of effectiveness of the judgment； 2. The Liquidating Group shall return RMB￥245, 000 to Feida Co. within ten days from the date of effectiveness of the judgment. The total court acceptance fee is RMB￥20, 666, in which RMB￥8, 384 shall be borne by the defendant and RMB￥11, 282 by the plaintiff KOMARA Co……

　　In the appeal, Fei Da Company claims that：

　　1. In the first instance, all the while the reckoning group has never submitted/provided the legally established evidence. Yet the documents by the so-called Economy Development Bureau of Hui Cun Border Economy Corporation District are not legally valid, either. Therefore, it is a major mistake of the lawsuit that the reckoning group has acted as being the main body of the plaintiff；

　　2. The all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract, which was signed by the Farming Production Society and Fei Da Company on May 6, 1998, should be invalid. The reasons are that： （1） the contract should be invalid according to the 2nd item, Rule No. 3 in “Solutions Applicable to Some Issues in ‘Contract Law for the Economy Related to the Foreign Trade' ”by the People's Supreme Court, which stipulates that “The contracts made by the parties of our country, who have no rights for the foreign trade business ratified and issued by the state branch in charge, are invalid”. Because Fei Da Company has no right for the foreign trade business, so the very contract is invalid. （2）According to the Rule No.9 in “Law for the Foreign Trade, People's Republic of China》, the appellant, Fei Da Company, has had no the approval license from the foreign economy-trade department of the State Council, what is more, has had no definite or specific foreign trade business scope, hence, the contract signed by the two sides should be invalid because of having violated the compulsive rules of the state law. （3） According to Rule No. 10 in the Section I ”Solutions Applicable to Some Issues in ’Contract Law, People's Republic of China' “： ”The parties make the contract beyond the business scope, the people's court does not maintain the contract be invalid due to this. But the exceptions are these that violates the limited business by the state, the concessionary business, the business banned by the law, the administrative codes.“ The foreign trade business belongs to the business ratified by the State. Thus, the contract signed by the appellant and the Farming Production Society should be invalid.

　　3. The all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on May 6, 1998, should be valid. The Farming Production Society should be excluded from the parties of this contract. The law should protect the terms of this contract.

　　4. The actual buying relationship of this case is that： Jiang Nan Company had bought the glove machine, then, sold it to Fei Da Company. Therefore, the court in charge of the first instance was wrong in identifying the facts.

　　5. The compromise agreement signed by Fei Da Company and Jiang Nan Company is legal and valid. Fei Da Company has carried out all the payment about this contract. So the responsibility for the payment should be dismissed.

　　6. The legal proceedings in the first instance have violated the law. During the first instance, the two appellees just postponed to pay the legal fare. The postponed date closed before November 12, 2002. However, so far the two appellees have not paid the legal fare yet. It has been illegal that the court in charge of the first instance had made a sentence under the condition that the court did not received the legal fare.

　　7. The first instance did not make it clear that the relationships of the specific rights and duties between the Reckoning Group and the Farming Production Society.

　　8. The first instance did not clearly identify the disputed amount of this case.

　　The Reckoning Group claims that：

　　1. The board of directors decided the foundation of the Reckoning Group after the study and discussion, which had officially declared to the departments concerned through the legal procedures, the foundation of which was ratified by the Foreign Fairs Office of Hui Cun Industrial and Commercial Administrative Management Bureau, by the Economy Development Bureau of Hui Cun Borders Economy Corporation District, by the Peace Section of Hui Cun Public Security Bureau, the purpose of which is to clear and settle accounts of the creditor's rights and the debt.

　　2. According to the 4th item, the 5th, the 6th and the 7th item in the all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract signed by the three parties on May 6, 1998, it is unnecessary for Fei Da Company to have the imports-exports business license ratified by the Foreign Economy andTrade Ministry. Hence, the contract signed by the three parties on May 6, 1998, is just an ordinary domestic purchase-sale contract, not an imports-exports purchase-sale contract, which should be considered valid.

　　3. The compromise agreement, which was signed by the legal representative Jiang NanCun of Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998, belongs to an invalid one.

　　4. The Farming Production Society claims that： the facts identified in the first instance are clear and the law applied is proper, requesting the court should turn down the appeal and maintain the judgment in the first instance.

　　Summarizing the appellant's appeal and the appellee's reply, also soliciting the opinions from the various parties, the focus of the case is that：

　　1. Whether does the Reckoning Group have qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case or not？

　　2. Whether is it valid or not that the all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract was signed by the three parties on May 6, 1998？

　　3. Whether is it valid or not that the compromise agreement was signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998？

　　4. Whether is there anything illegal in the legal proceedings for the court in charge of the first instance？

　　In the second trial, the evidence provided by the various parties is the same as that in the first instance, there is no new evidence given by each of them. Therefore, in the second trial, what our court has found out is the same as what the former court found out in the first instance. Regarding the above-mentioned focal issues, what our court has generally analyzed is as follows：

　　（I） Whether does the Reckoning Group have the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case or not？

　　The appellee, the Reckoning Group, thinks that, its foundation is legal, so it has the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case. Furthermore, it has provided the document No. 53 Hui Jing Fa Zi [2001] “the Approved Reply Paper about the Foundation of the Reckoning Group by Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd”, which proves that the foundation of the Reckoning Group has been approved by the state foreign trade branch in charge.

　　The appellant, Fei Da Company, has no objection to the authenticity of the document No.53 Hui Jing Fa [2001], which has been provided by the Reckoning Group. However, Fei Da Company thinks that Hui Nan Company is the privately owned business, the Reckoning Group should have been established by the Board of Directors. Fei Da Company has also provided the document No.125 Hui Jing Fa [1993] by the Economy Development Bureau of Hui Cun Border Economy Cooperation District, which is about “The Ratified Reply Paper to the Application for Establishing Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd in the Border Economy Cooperation District by Jiang Nan Industry Ltd and the Fibre Society （which is the only one in South Korea）”； Fei Day Company has also provided the list of the board of directors, which proves that Jiang Nan Company is the privately owned business. Thus, the Reckoning Group doesn't have the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case, which should have been acted as by the member of the board of directors.

　　In questioning the evidence, the appellee, the Reckoning Group, claims that： they have no objection to the authenticity about the document No.125 Hui Jing Fa [1993] and the list of the board of directors. But Jiang Nan Company is a joint venture between China and the foreign country. It is not the privately owned business, which has been claimed by the appellant. The Economy Development Bureau of Hui Jiang Border Economy Cooperation District has the right to set up a reckoning group.

　　Our court thinks that： Jiang Nan Company is the joint venture that has been set up by China Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd. and the Fibre Society （which is the only one in South Korea）. According to the document No.125 Hui Jing Fa [1993] provided by the appellant and according to the business legal representative's license of Jiang Nan Company provided in the first instance by the appellee, the Reckoning Group, this does sufficiently prove that Jiang Nan Company is a joint venture, not a privately owned business which has been claimed by the appellant, Fei Da Company. According to Rule No. 3 in “Business Law for the Domestic and Abroad Joint Venture, People's Republic of China》, Rule No.2, the 2nd item of Rule No. 3 in”Methods for Reckoning in Joint Venture Business》, the Economy Development Bureau of Hui Cun Border Economy Cooperation District, as being the state economy-trade branch in charge of the foreign trade business, has the right to decide setting up a reckoning group in the joint venture, Jiang Nan Company. In summary, the foundation of the Reckoning Group is legal and it has the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case. Therefore, it is untenable that the appellant, Fei Da Company, has claimed that the Reckoning Group has no qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of the case.

　　（II）Whether is it valid or not that the“All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract》has been signed by Jiang Nan Company, the Farming Production Society and Fei Da Company on May 6, 1998？

　　The appellant, Fei Da Company, thinks that, the actual buying relationship of this case is that, Jiang Nan Company sold the glove machine to Fei Da Company after Jiang Nan Company had bought the glove machine from the Farming Production Society. There are differences between the purchase price of Fei Da Company and that of Jiang Nan Company. Because Fei Da Company has no license ratified and issued by the state economy-trade branch in charge of the foreign trade, Fei Da Company has no right to carry out the foreign trade business. Thus, the contract signed by Fei Da Company and the Farming Production Society has violated the compulsive rules of the state law. Yet that doesn't influence the effectiveness of the purchase-sale contract between Fei Da Company and Jiang Nan Company. The Farming Production Society should be excluded from the parties of this contract. Consequently, it is maintained that the purchase-sale contract between Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company should be legal and valid. The law should protect the contents of the items in this contract. These have been provided： the special tariff payment paper （Imports and Exports, Hui Cun Customs）, the certificate that Hui Cun Border Trade Company imported 52 knitting machines from South Korea for Fei Da Company, the evidence of the fees for the agency, for the certificate, for the commodity check-up, for the port, for the customs, etc., which were all paid by Jiang Nan Company to Hui Cun Border Trade Company.

　　The appellee, the Farming Production Society and the Reckoning Group, thinks that： the all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract involved in this case has been signed through the three parties' negotiations, Jiang Nan Company, the Farming Production Society and Fei Day Company. In the contract, the promised sites for the delivery and the goods check-up are all inside the border of China. Therefore, the contract should not be regarded as the foreign-trade-related contract. It is just an ordinary domestic purchase-sale contract. So it is a valid contract.

　　Our court thinks that： Fei Da Company as being the first side and the Farming Production Society, Jiang Nan Company as being the second sides, signed “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract》on May 6, 1998, in which the marked goods ”all-automatic glove machine“ are provided by the main body of one side the Farming Production Society, the business of South Korea. Though the sites for the delivery and the goods check-up are all in China, the contract can't be considered as ”the ordinary domestic purchase-sale contract“. The contract should be considered as the imports & exports purchase-sale contract according to the main body and the object of the contract. ”Contract Law for the Economy Relevant to the Foreign Trade, People's Republic of China“ and the judicial explanations concerned are applicable to the dissension arisen in the contract. According to the 2nd item, Rule No. 3 in ”Solutions Applicable to Some Issues in ‘Contract Law for the Economy Related to the Foreign Trade' “ by the People's Supreme Court： ”The contracts made by the parties of our country, who have no the foreign trade business right ratified and issued by the state branch in charge, are invalid“. According to Rule No. 13 in ”Law for the Foreign Trade, People's Republic of China“which stipulates”The organization or the individual, who have no license for the foreign trade business, can entrust the agent in charge of the foreign trade to run the business in the domestic country within his business range“, because neither Fei Da Company nor Jiang Nan Company has no right to run the foreign trade business and they cannot directly sign the goods purchase-sale contract with the foreign businessman, so the ”All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-sale Contract“is invalid due to being unqualified for the main body of the contract.

　　（III） Whether is it valid or not that the compromise agreement was signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998？

　　The appellant, Fei Da Company, thinks that, the all-automatic glove knitting machine, which is disputed in this case, was sold by Jiang Nan Company to Fei Da Company after Jiang Nan Company had bought it from the Farming Production Society. There is direct buying relationship between the appellant Fei Da Company and Jiang Nan Company. Yet there is no direct buying relationship between Fei Da Company and the Farming Production Society. Therefore, the compromise agreement signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Day Company should be valid.

　　The appellees, the Reckoning Group and the Farming Production Society, both claims that, the compromise agreement signed by Fei Day Company and Jiang Nan Company should be invalid. The reason is that the main body of one side has not participated in “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”.

　　Our court thinks that： the two respects of the law relationship are involved in “The Compromise Agreement” signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998. One is the compromise agreement that has been reached by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company because of the arrears for the purchase-sale of the socks knitting machine between the two sides； the other is the compromise agreement reached by Jiang Nan Company when they had dissension while their carrying out “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”, which is involved in this case. For this case is about the settlement of the dissension arisen in the purchase-sale of the all-automatic glove machine between Fei Da Company and Jiang Nan Company, the Farming Production Society. So the promise in the “Compromise Agreement”, that “Fei Da Company should pay Jiang Nan Company ￥180,000Yuan as the payment for the socks knitting machine”, has no relation with this case because of belonging to another relationship of the law. Our court will not judge the effectiveness of this item. The promise in the “Compromise Agreement”, that “Fei Da Company should pay Jiang Nan Company ￥80,000Yuan as the payment for the glove machine, the rolling machine and the fittings”, is the compromise agreement reached by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company when their dealing with the dissension arisen from “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”. Although another party, the Farming Production Society, has not participated in the agreement, yet Fei Da Company does not have the right for the foreign trade business considering the signing and the implementation of “Full-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”. So Fei Da cannot participate in signing the foreign trade contract； actually it has not had the direct buying relationship with the Farming Production Society. It is Jiang Nan Company that has entrusted Hui Cun Border Trade Campany （who has the right to do the foreign trade business） to import 57 glove machines from South Korea； and has also paid the relevant fees to Hui Cun Border Trade Company. Then, Jiang Nan Company sold the machines to Fei Da Company. Even if Fei Da Company didn't pay all the payment for the goods, the Farming Production Society could but claim rights from Hui Cun Border Trade Company and Jiang Nan Company according to the foreign trade contract, the Farming Production Society cannot claim rights from Fei Da Company. Moreover, Jiang Nan Company can claim rights from Fei Da Company according to its contract with Fei Da Company, in which the actual buying relationship has taken place between Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company. Therefore, because “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”, which was signed by Jiang Nan Company, the Farming Production Society and Fei Da Company, is invalid, the Farming Production Society cannot have direct economic contact with Fei Da Company who has no rights for the foreign trade business. So the Jiang Nan Company's dissension from this contract, and then the compromise agreement reached with Fei Da Company have no relation with the Farming Production Society, the agreement should be considered valid. Because Jiang Nan Company has already come to the compromise agreement with Fei Da Company about the arrears for the glove machines, and actually the agreement has been completely implemented, it is untenable that Jiang Nan Company started a lawsuit against it.

　　（IV） Whether has the sentence of the first instance court violated the legal proceedings？

　　The first instance court made the sentence under the circumstance that Jiang Nan Company and the Farming Production Society had not paid the legal cost. It doesn't belong to the legal violation of the legal proceedings. Thus, it is untenable that the appellant claims the legal proceedings of the first instance should be illegal due to this.

　　Summarizing all the about-mentioned, it is untenable that the Reckoning Group and the Farming Production Society claims that Fei Da Company should pay the goods payment and compensate for the loss, and it is not supported by the law. This request is unreasonable and should be turned down. The facts that the first instance has identified are clear, yet there was certain improper place in the law applied. According to Rule No.2 in “Contract Law for the Economy Related to the Foreign Trade, People's Republic of China”, the 2nd item of Rule No.3 in “Solutions Applicable to Some Issues in ‘Contract Law Related to the Foreign Trade' ”by the People's Supreme Court, and （II） in the first item of Rule No.153 in “Code of Civil Law, People's Republic of China”, the sentence is as follows：

　　1. Withdrawing the civil judgment No.63 Yan Zhou Jing Chu Zi （2000） by the People's Intermediate Court of YanBian Korean-Nationality Autonomous Prefecture, Jilin Province, People's Republic of China；

　　2. Turning down the lawsuit requests by the Reckoning Group of Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd. and the Farming Production Society of KOMARA, South Korean.

　　3. The fees for the first instance and the second instance, RMB￥41,332, shall be borne by the Reckoning Group of Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd. and the Farming Production Society of KOMARA, the Republic of Korea.

　　This judgment is the final judgment.

　　Presiding judge： Wang Xiaodong

　　Acting judge： Wang Donglin

　　Acting judge： Jiangtao

　　Jilin Province Higher Peoples Court

　　（Seal）

　　June 10, 2003

　　Clerk： Niu Feng