中華人民共和國吉林省高級人民法院民事判決書

　?。?/span>2003）吉民三終字第20號

　　上訴人（原審被告）：諸暨市飛達實業(yè)有限公司（原浙江省諸暨市飛達實業(yè)公司）。住所：浙江省諸暨市城關鎮(zhèn)浣東北路60號。

　　法定代表人：宗光培，該公司總經(jīng)理。

　　委托代理人：田大原，吉林衡豐律師事務所律師。

　　被上訴人（原審原告）：琿春江南實業(yè)有限公司清算小組。住所：琿春市。

　　代表人：金龍華，該清算小組組長。

　　被上訴人（原審原告）：韓國KOMARA農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社。住所：韓國釜山廣城市蓮提區(qū)蓮山千洞586－15.

　　法定代表人：姜大建，該社社長。

　　委托代理人：王文君，吉林由正律師事務所律師。

　　上訴人諸暨市飛達實業(yè)有限公司（以下簡稱飛達公司）與被上訴人琿春江南實業(yè)有限公司清算小組（以下簡稱清算組）、韓國KOMARA農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社（以下簡稱農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社）購銷手套機合同糾紛一案，不服中華人民共和國吉林省延邊朝鮮族自治州中級人民法院（2000）延州經(jīng)初字第63號民事判決，向本院提起上訴。本院受理后，依法組成合議庭，公開開庭進行了審理。上訴人飛達公司委托代理人田大原，被上訴人清算組代表人金龍華，農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社委托代理人王文君到庭參加訴訟。本案現(xiàn)已審理終結。

　　原審法院查明：（一）1999年7月5日，琿春江南實業(yè)有限公司（以下簡稱江南公司）因未參加年檢被琿春市工商行政管理局吊銷營業(yè)執(zhí)照，并被告知企業(yè)的債權債務由企業(yè)自行處理。琿春市邊境經(jīng)濟合作區(qū)經(jīng)濟發(fā)展局于2001年6月1日下發(fā)琿經(jīng)發(fā)（2001）53號文件，決定江南公司成立清算小組。琿春市公安局治安科出具證明：證明清算組的公章已依法備案。江南公司原法定代表人姜南春于2000年6月8日出具書面說明：1、江南公司由其提議并同意成立清算小組，其委托宋明男為清算小組組長，金龍華任副組長，呂相基、李順子、金昌浩為成員；2、其同意由金龍華負責清算工作及一切法律實施事宜。因此，清算組成立的程序合法，應負責江南公司的債權債務清理工作，具有作為訴訟原告的主體資格。

　?。ǘ?/span>1998年5月6日，江南公司、農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社共同作為乙方與作為甲方的飛達公司簽訂了全自動手套機購銷合同。合同約定：甲方向乙方訂購日產(chǎn)“松國”牌或“刀金”牌F7型－F10型全自動手套機680臺（具體供應計劃憑韓方傳真件為準）；交貨時間從1998年5月8日起至1999年1月8日止；價格按FOB圖們火車站交貨價每臺17，000元人民幣；交貨地點為圖們火車站；付款方式機器運抵圖們火車站后付清全部貨款；運輸方法及費用負擔，鐵路運費由甲方負擔；違約責任，如單方違約，違約方必須向對方賠償標準為未執(zhí)行部分合同總額的20％的違約金。該合同由甲方飛達公司加蓋單位公章，法定代表人宗光培簽名，乙方江南公司代理人金龍華簽名，農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社加蓋單位公章、代表人姜大建簽名。合同簽訂后，原告方按約定給被告發(fā)運了價值為793，573元的全自動手套機及部分配件。飛達公司陸續(xù)給付了原告手套機款471，266元，現(xiàn)尚欠原告方手套機款322，307元未付。琿春海關進口關稅專用繳款書及琿春邊境貿(mào)易公司代理進口證明能夠證明：1998年8月10日，由琿春邊境貿(mào)易公司代江南公司從韓國進口57臺手套編織機，江南公司于1998年8月12日向琿春邊境貿(mào)易公司交納了7，700元的進口手套機的代理費、辦證費、商檢費、口岸費等。在合同履行期間，飛達公司的法定代表人宗光培與江南公司的委托代理人金龍華的多次往來信件證明，按照上述購銷合同，雙方已實際履行。故由二原告與被告簽訂的此全自動手套機購銷合同系雙方當事人真實意思表示，該合同為有效合同。另外，為履行合同，江南公司為飛達公司發(fā)運手套編織機已墊付運費4，841.32元。

　?。ㄈ?/span>1998年12月18日，飛達公司作為甲方與作為乙方的江南公司簽訂和解協(xié)議。協(xié)議稱：茲有甲方于97年7月24日向乙方購買乙方合資企業(yè)使用全套織襪機設備，98年5月6日簽訂購買乙方與韓國釜山KOMARA農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社合資經(jīng)營的進口韓產(chǎn)全自動手套機，兩份合同在履行期間，由于種種原因，使合同不能按約履行，雙方在有關問題上出現(xiàn)意見分岐，導致乙方向吉林省延邊州中級人民法院提起訴訟?，F(xiàn)經(jīng)雙方法人代表友好協(xié)商，一致達成和解協(xié)議如下：1、襪機總款按935，000元計算，除已付給乙方貨款及甲方在銷售期間墊付的有關費用外，甲方一次性再付給乙方襪機款18萬元；2、手套機、卷邊機及配件總額按845，308元計算，除甲方已付給乙方手套機、卷邊機及配件款765，308元外，甲方一次性再付給乙方人民幣80，000元（捌萬元整）；3、以上二項總計甲方需付給乙方一次性人民幣貳拾陸萬元整（260，000元）；4、乙方在簽訂本協(xié)議時，必須立即辦理法院撤訴手續(xù)及有關財產(chǎn)解凍手續(xù)，同時將吉林省延邊州中級人民法院的撤訴裁定書傳真給諸暨市人民法院代為送達，并將原件用特快專遞郵寄甲方；5、本協(xié)議經(jīng)甲、乙雙方法人代表簽字即生效，生效后雙方都不得用任何理由和借口向對方提出異議，今后雙方互不追究任何責任；6、協(xié)議簽訂后，甲方憑延邊州中級人民法院撤訴裁定書一次性付給乙方全部貨款計 260，000元（貳拾陸萬元整）。該協(xié)議由飛達公司法定代表人宗光培簽名并加蓋公章，江南公司法定代表人姜南春簽名并加蓋公章。1998年12月22日，姜南春給飛達公司出具收條“今收到飛達公司襪子機及手套機款共計24.5萬元，至此與飛達公司的兩機款全部收完，合同從此終止，款已結清”，姜南春在收條上簽名并加蓋了江南公司的公章。上述協(xié)議及收條的形成，沒有原手套機購銷合同的另一方農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社的參與，農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社也不知情，未同意、未授權。此和解協(xié)議及收條系江南公司與飛達公司擅自達成的，侵害了購銷合同一方農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社的利益，故該協(xié)議屬單方行為，為無效協(xié)議。江南公司因無效協(xié)議所取得的24.5萬元人民幣應返還給飛達公司。因江南公司與飛達公司對和解協(xié)議的達成均存在過錯，由此因和解無效存在的損失由協(xié)議雙方各自承擔相應的責任。

　?。ㄋ模┮蜣r(nóng)產(chǎn)會社未發(fā)運的40臺手套機是農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社個人行為，與飛達公司不直接發(fā)生關系，全自動手套機購銷合同中對此也未約定，飛達公司并不知農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社對手套機進行管理等情況，況且農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社沒有足夠的證據(jù)證明627，250元人民幣損失的由來，故農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社的此項訴訟請求不予支持。

　　原審法院認為：二原告與被告所簽訂的全自動手套機購銷合同為有效合同，被告方應給付拖欠的貨款并承擔違約責任。二原告要求被告給付322，307元及違約金64，461元，運費4，841.32元的主張本院予以支持；原告農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社要求被告賠償627，250元人民幣損失的主張無事實依據(jù)，本院不予支持。被告方提出的原告無訴訟主體資格，1998年12月18日雙方已達成和解協(xié)議對手套機、襪子機款已結清，應駁回原告訴訟請求的主張不成立，不予支持。依照《中華人民共和國經(jīng)濟合同法》第六條、第二十九條第一款、第三十一條、第三十二條、《中華人民共和國民法通則》第一百零六條、第六十一條第一款之規(guī)定，判決：一、飛達公司于本判決生效之日起十日內(nèi)償付清算組、農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社全自動手套編織機及配件款322，307元，運費 4，841.32元，并支付違約金64，461元，合計391，609.32元；二、清算組于本判決生效之日起十日內(nèi)返還飛達公司24.5萬元人民幣。案件受理費20，666元，由被告負擔8，384元，由原告農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社負擔11，282元。

　　飛達公司上訴稱：1、清算組在一審中始終未提交其依法成立的有效證據(jù)，而所謂的琿春市邊境經(jīng)濟合作區(qū)經(jīng)濟發(fā)展局的文件又無法律效力，故清算組作為原告的訴訟主體錯誤；2、農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社與飛達公司1998年5月 6日簽訂的全自動手套機購銷合同無效。理由是：（1）根據(jù)最高人民法院《關于適用<涉外經(jīng)濟合同法>若干問題的解答》第三條第二款“訂立合同的我國當事人未經(jīng)國家主管機關批準授予對外經(jīng)營權的，合同無效”的規(guī)定，因飛達公司無對外貿(mào)易經(jīng)營權，故該合同無效。（2）根據(jù)《中華人民共和國對外貿(mào)易法》第九條的規(guī)定，上訴人飛達公司未經(jīng)國務院對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易主管部門許可，且無明確的對外貿(mào)易經(jīng)營范圍，故雙方所簽合同因違反國家法律強制性規(guī)定而無效。（3）根據(jù)最高人民法院《關于適用<中華人民共和國合同法>若干問題的解釋》（一）第十條“當事人超越經(jīng)營范圍訂立合同，人民法院不因此認定合同無效。但違反國家限制經(jīng)營、特許經(jīng)營以及法律、行政法規(guī)禁止經(jīng)營規(guī)定的除外”的規(guī)定，對外貿(mào)易屬國家授權特許經(jīng)營，故上訴人與農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社所簽的合同無效。

　　3、江南公司與飛達公司1998年5月6日簽訂的全自動手套機購銷合同有效，該合同締約方應排除農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社，合同項下的內(nèi)容應該受到法律保護。

　　4、本案事實上的買賣關系，系江南公司自農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社買入手套機之后賣給飛達公司，故一審法院在事實認定上是錯誤的。

　　5、飛達公司與江南公司簽訂的和解協(xié)議合法有效，飛達公司已因該協(xié)議付出了履行此合同的全部對價，付款責任應予解除。

　　6、原審程序違法，二被上訴人在原審時只是緩交訴訟費，緩交日期截止到2002年11月12日之前，而二被上訴人到目前為止仍未交納訴訟費，原審法院在沒有收到訴訟費的情況下作出的判決是違法的。

　　7、原審對清算組和農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社之間的具體權利義務關系沒有審理清楚。

　　8、原審判決對本案爭議數(shù)額認定不清。

　　清算組答辯稱：1、清算組的成立是經(jīng)董事會研究決定，以合法的程序向琿春市工商行政管理局外事科、琿春邊境經(jīng)濟合作區(qū)經(jīng)濟發(fā)展局、琿春市公安局治安科申報批準的，目的是清算清理債權債務。2、根據(jù)1998年5月6日三方簽訂的全自動手套機購銷合同第四條、第五條、第六條、第七條的約定，飛達公司不需要外經(jīng)貿(mào)部批準的進、出口營業(yè)執(zhí)照，故1998年5月6日三方簽訂的合同是一般的國內(nèi)購銷合同，不是進出口購銷合同，應認定有效。3、1998年12月18日，江南公司法人代表姜南春與飛達公司簽訂的和解協(xié)議屬無效協(xié)議。

　　農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社答辯稱：一審判決認定事實清楚，適用法律正確，請求二審法院駁回上訴，維持原判。

　　綜合上訴人的上訴及被上訴人的答辯，并征詢各方當事人的意見，本案爭議的焦點問題是：1、清算組是否具備本案的訴訟主體資格？2、三方當事人在1998年5月6日簽訂的全自動手套機購銷合同是否有效？3、江南公司和飛達公司1998年12月18日簽訂的和解協(xié)議是否有效？4、原審法院是否存在程序違法之處？各方當事人在二審中所舉的證據(jù)與一審完全相同，均沒有新證據(jù)提供，故本院二審查明的事實與一審相同。針對上述焦點問題，本院綜合評判如下：

　　（一）清算組是否具備本案的訴訟主體資格？

　　被上訴人清算組認為其成立是合法的，故具備本案的訴訟主體資格，并提供了琿春市邊境經(jīng)濟合作區(qū)經(jīng)濟發(fā)展局琿經(jīng)發(fā)[2001]53號“關于琿春江南實業(yè)有限公司成立清算小組的批復”，證明清算組是經(jīng)過國家對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易主管部門批準后成立的。

　　上訴人飛達公司對清算組提供的琿經(jīng)發(fā)[2001]53號文件的真實性沒有異議，但認為江南公司是私營企業(yè)，應由董事會成立清算小組，并提供了琿春市邊境經(jīng)濟合作區(qū)經(jīng)濟發(fā)展局琿經(jīng)發(fā)[1993]125號“關于琿春江南實業(yè)開發(fā)公司與韓國唯一纖維會社在邊境經(jīng)濟合作區(qū)興建琿春江南實業(yè)有限公司的申請批復”和江南公司董事會名單，證明江南公司是私營企業(yè)，故清算組不具備本案的訴訟主體資格，應由董事會成員作為本案的訴訟主體參加訴訟。

　　被上訴人清算組質證稱，對上訴人提供的琿經(jīng)發(fā)[1993]125號文件和江南公司董事會名單的真實性沒有異議，但江南公司是中外合資企業(yè)，而不是上訴人所說的私營企業(yè)，琿春市邊境經(jīng)濟合作區(qū)經(jīng)濟發(fā)展局有權成立清算小組。

　　本院認為：江南公司是由中國琿春江南實業(yè)開發(fā)公司與韓國唯一纖維會社合資成立的，根據(jù)上訴人提供的琿經(jīng)發(fā)[1993]125號文件和被上訴人清算組一審時提供的江南公司的企業(yè)法人營業(yè)執(zhí)照，足以證明江南公司是中外合資經(jīng)營企業(yè)，而非上訴人飛達公司所稱的私營企業(yè)。根據(jù)《中華人民共和國中外合資經(jīng)營企業(yè)法》第三條及《外商投資企業(yè)清算辦法》第二條、第三條第二款的規(guī)定，琿春市邊境經(jīng)濟合作區(qū)經(jīng)濟發(fā)展局作為國家對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易主管部門，有權決定中外合資企業(yè)江南公司成立清算小組。綜上，清算組的成立符合法律規(guī)定，具備本案的訴訟主體資格，故上訴人飛達公司主張清算組不具備本案訴訟主體資格的上訴理由不能成立。

　?。ǘ┙瞎?、農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社和飛達公司于1998年5月6日簽訂的《全自動手套機購銷合同》是否有效？

　　上訴人飛達公司認為，本案事實上的買賣關系，是江南公司自農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社買入手套機后賣與飛達公司，飛達公司的買入價和江南公司買入價之間存在差異，因飛達公司未經(jīng)國家對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易主管部門許可，沒有對外經(jīng)營權，故其同農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社簽訂的合同因違反國家法律的強制性規(guī)定而無效，但并不影響飛達公司同江南公司之間買賣合同的效力，該合同的締約方應排除農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社，從而認定江南公司同飛達公司間的買賣合同合法有效，合同項下的內(nèi)容應受到法律保護，并提供了琿春海關進出口關稅專用繳款書、琿春邊境貿(mào)易公司代江南公司從韓國進口57臺手套編織機的證明以及江南公司向琿春邊境貿(mào)易公司交納了進口手套機的代理費、辦證費、商檢費、口岸費、海關關稅等稅費的證據(jù)。

　　被上訴人農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社和清算組認為本案中涉及的《全自動手套機購銷合同》是江南公司、農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社、飛達公司三方協(xié)商簽訂的，其中所約定的交貨和驗貨地點均在中國境內(nèi)，故該合同不應視為涉外經(jīng)濟合同，而是一般的國內(nèi)購銷合同，故應為有效合同。

　　本院認為：飛達公司作為甲方同乙方農(nóng)產(chǎn)全社、江南公司于1998年5月6日簽訂的《全自動手套機購銷合同》中約定的標的物“全自動手套機”是由作為合同一方主體的韓國企業(yè)農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社提供的，雖然合同中約定的交貨和驗貨地點均在中國境內(nèi)，但并不能以此將該合同認定為“一般的國內(nèi)購銷合同”，而應按照合同的主體及客體認定該合同為進出口購銷合同，由該合同所產(chǎn)生的糾紛應適用《中華人民共和國涉外經(jīng)濟合同法》及相關的司法解釋。根據(jù)最高人民法院《關于適用<涉外經(jīng)濟合同法>若干問題的解答》第三條第二款“訂立合同的我國當事人未經(jīng)國家主管機關批準授予對外經(jīng)營權的，該合同應當確認無效”以及《中華人民共和國對外貿(mào)易法》第十三條“沒有對外貿(mào)易經(jīng)營許可的組織或者個人，可以在國內(nèi)委托對外貿(mào)易經(jīng)營者在其經(jīng)營范圍內(nèi)代為辦理其對外貿(mào)易業(yè)務”的規(guī)定，由于飛達公司和江南公司均不具有對外貿(mào)易經(jīng)營權，不能與外商直接簽訂有關貨物買賣合同，故本案中所涉及的《全自動手套機購銷合同》因合同主體不合格而無效。

　?。ㄈ┙瞎竞惋w達公司于1998年12月18日簽訂的和解協(xié)議是否有效？

　　上訴人飛達公司認為本案爭議的全自動手套編織機是由江南公司向農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社買進后再賣給飛達公司的，上訴人飛達公司與江南公司間存在直接的買賣關系，而和農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社間沒有直接的買賣關系，故江南公司同飛達公司間簽訂的和解協(xié)議合法有效。

　　被上訴人清算組和農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社均主張飛達公司同江南公司1998年12月18日簽訂的和解協(xié)議無效，理由是該協(xié)議沒有《全自動手套機購銷合同》的一方主體農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社參加。

　　本院認為：江南公司與飛達公司于1998年12月18日簽訂的“和解協(xié)議”中共涉及兩個方面的法律關系，一個是江南公司同飛達公司就雙方間因買賣織襪機而拖欠的襪機款所達成的和解協(xié)議；另一個是江南公司同飛達公司就履行本案中所涉及的《全自動手套機購銷合同》而產(chǎn)生的糾紛所達成的和解協(xié)議。由于本案處理的是飛達公司同江南公司、農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社間因買賣全自動手套機而產(chǎn)生的糾紛，故飛達公司同江南公司在“和解協(xié)議”中關于“飛達公司應給付江南公司襪機款18萬元”的約定，因屬另一法律關系，與本案無關，對此條款的效力，本院不予評判：“和解協(xié)議”中關于“飛達公司應給付江南公司手套機、卷邊機及配件款8萬元”的約定，是江南公司同飛達公司就履行本案中所涉及的《全自動手套機購銷合同》而產(chǎn)生的糾紛所達成的和解協(xié)議，從《全自動手套機購銷合同》的簽訂和履行情況來看，首先，《全自動手套機購銷合同》中并未約定貨款具體應給付江南公司還是農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社，且江南公司和農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社在二審中均主張貨款只要給付了其中的一方，就應視為給付；其次，飛達公司不具有對外貿(mào)易經(jīng)營權，實際上其亦未與農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社發(fā)生直接的買賣關系，而是由江南公司委托了有對外貿(mào)易經(jīng)營權的琿春邊境貿(mào)易公司從韓國進口了57臺手套機，并向琿春邊境貿(mào)易公司交納了相關的費用，然后再由江南公司賣給飛達公司，即使飛達公司沒有全部給付貨款，農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社也只能依據(jù)外貿(mào)合同向琿春邊境貿(mào)易公司和江南公司主張權利，而不能向飛達公司主張權利；而江南公司則可以依據(jù)其同飛達公司間實際發(fā)生的買賣關系向飛達公司主張權利。綜上，由于江南公司對飛達公司拖欠的手套機款有處分的權利，而農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社又沒有直接向飛達公司主張貨款的權利，因此，江南公司同飛達公司就手套機款所達成的和解協(xié)議，應認定有效。由于江南公司同飛達公司就拖欠的手套機款已達成和解協(xié)議，并已實際履行完畢，故江南公司再對此提起訴訟，沒有法律依據(jù)。

　?。ㄋ模┰瓕彿ㄔ号袥Q是否違反法定程序？

　　原審法院在未收取江南公司和農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社訴訟費的情況下作出判決，雖有不妥之處，但不屬于法定的程序違法，故上訴人以此主張原審判決程序違法的理由不能成立。

　　綜上，清算組和農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社請求飛達公司給付貨款并賠償損失的主張，沒有法律依據(jù)，其訴訟請求無理，應予駁回。原審判決認定事實清楚，但適用法律有不當之處。根據(jù)《中華人民共和國涉外經(jīng)濟合同法》第二條、最高人民法院《關于適用<涉外經(jīng)濟合同法>若干問題的解答》第三條第二款以及《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》第一百五十三條第一款第（二）項之規(guī)定，判決如下：

　　一、撤銷中華人民共和國吉林省延邊朝鮮族自治州中級人民法院（2000）延州經(jīng)初字第63號民事判決；二、駁回琿春江南實業(yè)有限公司清算小組、韓國KOMARA農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社的訴訟請求。

　　一、二審案件受理費41，332元，由琿春江南實業(yè)有限公司清算小組、韓國KOMARA農(nóng)產(chǎn)會社負擔。

　　本判決為終審判決。

　　審 判 長 王曉東

　　代理審判員 王東林

　　代理審判員 姜 濤

　　2003年6月10日

　　本件與原本核對無異

　　書 記 員 牛 鋒

　　Jilin Province Higher Peoples Court

　　of

　　the People's Republic of China

　　Civil Judgment

　?。?/span>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：

　?。?/span>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.

　?。?/span>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.

　?。?/span>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.

　?。?/span>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

　?。?/span>Seal）

　　June 10, 2003

　　Clerk： Niu Feng