APPEAL

　　上诉人（一审被告）：[ ]贸易有限公司，住所地[ ]. (来源：专业英语学习网站 http://www.EnglishCN.com)

　　法定代表人：苏庆国，公司经理。

　　The Appellant （The defendant in the first instance）：

　　被上诉人（一审原告）：[ ]工程总公司第一工程公司，住所地[ ].

　　法定代表人：柴跃进，公司经理。

　　The Appellee （The plaintiff in the first instance）：

　　上诉人因租赁合同一案，不服太原铁路运输法院（2001）太铁经初字第6号《民事判决书》，现依法提起上诉。

　　The Appellant declines to accept the Civil Judgment with a number of （2001） Tai-Tie-Jing-Chu-Zi No 6 passed by Taiyuan Railway Transportation Court, in respect of the lease contract case, and hereby files the appeal according to law.

　　上诉请求：

　　APPEAL

　　1.撤销太原铁路运输法院（2001）太铁经初字第6号《民事判决书》。

　　2.依法认定、改判1998年5月14日上诉人与被上诉人签订的房屋租赁合同有效。

　　3.被上诉人承担违约责任，并履行98年合同义务后，同意解除合同。

　　上诉事实和理由：

　　APPELATE FACTS AND REASONS：

　　首先，上诉人对本案的基本和主导观点：

　　Firstly, the Appellant's basic and leading opinions about the case follow：

　　上诉人认为，根据《合同法》倡导的当事人意思高度自治和契约自由的理念，以及目前司法实践中的主流执法观念，上诉人与被上诉人之间共存在三份合同，均应认定为有效合同。该三份合同的主体、标的物、价款基本一致。

　　The Appellant maintains that in accordance with the mentalities of highly autonomous expression of intentions and contract freedom called for in the Contract Law, as well as the mainstream law-enforcing mentalities in judicial practice at present, there exist three contracts between the Appellant and the Appellee, which shall be deemed to be valid. The subjects, matters and considerations involved in the three contracts are basically identical.

　　一、一审法院认定1998年5月14日上诉人与被上诉人签订的房屋租赁合同为无效合同，与法无据。

　　I. The first-instance court ascertained that the house lease contract executed between the Appellant and the Appellee on May 14, 1998 was invalid. This ruling is not law-based.

　　二、法院以被上诉人已履行了合同大部分义务，上诉人在双方订立合同时已在使用租赁房屋为由认定上诉人先履行抗辩权不能成立，这明显违反了《合同法》有关先履行抗辩权的规定。

　　II. The court ascertained that the Appellant's exercise of the right to avoid performing the contract as a defense against the Appellee's breach by reason that the Appellee has performed a majority of the contractual obligations and the Appellant was using the lease house when the parties entered into the contract. This ruling is in material violation of the provision of the Contract Law in respect of the defensive refusal to perform the contract.

　　其次，上诉人基于并不完全认可的一审法院判决的几点抗辩观点：

　　Secondly, the following are some defensive opinions of the Appellant based on the first-instance judgment which cannot be fully accepted.

　　一、一审法院以2001年后，上诉人与被上诉人之间存在事实租赁关系为由，判决上诉人比照2000年合同的租金标准承担租金，与法无据。

　　I. The ruling of the first-instance court ordering the Appellant to pay the rental according to the rental standard prescribed in the contract of 2000 by reason that the Appellant was in an actual lease relationship with the Appellee subsequent to 2001 is not law-based.

　　二、一审法院对被上诉人未履约的13平米问题的判决，存在明显的执法错误。

　　II. The first-instance judgment on the 13 square meters in respect of which the Appellant failed perform the contract is explicitly wrong in law implementation.

　　三、鉴于一审法院孤立执法（只处理2000年合同）的情况，则上诉人在2000年度以后已经给付的租金就不止贰万元。

　　III. Given the isolated law execution by the first-instance court （i.e. it only considered the contract of 2000）, the Appellant has paid more than RMB20,000 in rental following 2000.

　　四、即便按照在一审法院只处理2000年合同的情形下，对有关装潢不予补偿，亦不公平。

　　IV. Even under the circumstance of only handling the contract of 2000 by the first-instance court, no compensation has been given to decoration, which is unfair either.

　　综上所述，上诉人认为，上诉人与被上诉人之间共存在三份合同。被上诉人和一审法院对该三份合同在明知和已经查明的情况下，却有意割裂当事人之间的完整民事法律关系。从而造成一审判决存在片面、孤立执法（如只处理2000年合同），加重当事人的讼累。以及一审判决存在执法尺度、执法理念的不统一、不协调（如对13平米未追究违约责任）。还有一审判决存在越权司法、违法裁量（如处理2001年房租）的等等问题。为此，上诉人恳请二审法院，能在基于依法查明本案全部事实的基础上，均衡执法，做出公正的裁判！

　　In view of the foregoing, the Appellant maintains that there have existed three contracts between the Appellant and the Appellee. The Appellee and the first-instance court has intentionally isolated the complete set of civil juristic relationships between the parties, thereby leading to one-sided judgment in the first instance and adding burden to the parties' litigation efforts. Meanwhile, the criteria for law-enforcement were unbalanced and unharmonious in the first instance, coupled with other problems including entitled law application and illegal ruling. Therefore, the Appellant requests second-instance court to make a fair judgment on the basis of ascertaining all facts of this case.

　　此致

　　北京铁路运输中级法院

　　To：

　　Beijing Railway Transportation Intermediate Court

　　上诉人：[ ]贸易有限公司

　　The Appellant： [ ] Trade Co., Ltd

　　二00 年 月 日

　　Date：

　　附：本上诉状副本二份

　　Attachment： two copies of the appeal