Ownership of Tangshan Yintai City

Lunan district People's Court, Tangshan City, Hebei Province

civil judgment

(20 16) Ji 0202 No.2821

Plaintiff: Tangshan Yintai Department Store Co., Ltd. Domicile: No.4, No.2 Xinhua West Road, lunan district, Tangshan.

Legal Representative: Chen Xiaodong, board chairman.

Authorized Agent: G Moumou, lawyer of Tangshan Branch of Hebei Jihua Law Firm.

Defendant W, female, born on, Han nationality, lives in lubei district, Tangshan.

Authorized Agent: X Moumou, lawyer of Hebei Tang Sheng Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: D Moumou, lawyer of Hebei Tang Sheng Law Firm.

After the plaintiff Tangshan Yintai Department Store Co., Ltd. and the defendant W Rebecca filed the case on 20 16, 10, 19, the court held a public hearing in accordance with the ordinary procedures. Plaintiff Tangshan Yintai Department Store Co., Ltd. entrusted agent G Moumou, defendant W Moumou, entrusted agents X Moumou and D Moumou to attend the lawsuit. The case has now been closed.

The plaintiff Tangshan Yintai Department Store Co., Ltd. brought a lawsuit to our hospital: 1. Dissolve the lease contract of Store Yintai City signed by the plaintiff and the defendant. The first floor of Tangshan World Expo Plaza 156, operating the brand "Nalan Restaurant"; 2. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff rent of 95,472 yuan and comprehensive service management fee of 88,924.59 yuan, totaling184,396.59 yuan (as of February 29th, 20 16); 3. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff a penalty of RMB 65,438 +06,964.49 for delayed performance from March 65+0 to April 36+May 36, 2065; All litigation costs in this case shall be borne by the defendant. Facts and reasons: In 20 14, the original defendant signed the Yintai City Lease Contract, stipulating that the defendant rented the plaintiff's shop at No.1 156, the first floor of Tangshan World Expo Plaza, and its business brand was "Nalan Pavilion". The lease term is three years (from 20 1 410/0 month1to 2017 September 30). Rent calculation method: the monthly rent standard for the first year and the second year is RMB 60 yuan/square meter; In the third year, the rent standard is 75 yuan/m2. In addition, during the third lease year from/kloc-0 to/,the defendant will withdraw the rent at the rate of 1 5% of the pre-tax turnover of the store every month during the operation period of the house, with one quarter (three months) as a lease period. At the same time, it is stipulated in the contract that in order to support the defendant's business, the plaintiff will exempt the defendant from three months' rent, specifically, 1 0 and 1 2 months' rent in the lease year and1month's rent in the second lease year. Article 6 of the contract stipulates that the defendant shall pay RMB 159 12 yuan to the plaintiff as the performance bond within three working days after the signing of the contract. Article 27 stipulates that the court of jurisdiction for disputes between the two parties under this contract is the court where the house is located. At the same time, both parties signed a property contract, stipulating that the comprehensive service management fee will be 45 yuan RMB per square meter per month from the date of lease, that is, RMB 5,967 per month, and that the defendant should pay RMB 1 1934 to the plaintiff as the comprehensive service management fee deposit within 5 days from the date of signing this contract. After the signing of the above contract, the defendant moved in as agreed, and the plaintiff fulfilled all obligations as agreed in the contract, but the defendant failed to pay the rent in time as agreed, which constituted a fundamental breach of contract. As of May 3, 2065438, the defendant owed the plaintiff a total of 2013 1 .08 yuan. After repeated reminders by the plaintiff, the defendant has

Defendant w argued that 1. The plaintiff's claim is inconsistent with the facts, and the defendant has no reason to pay the rent. The court shall reject the plaintiff's claim. The defendant was the first merchant to settle in Yintai Department Store. Due to the shortage of manpower in Yintai Department Store, the defendant suffered serious losses. The plaintiff proposed to transform the first floor into a street with amorous feelings to attract customers. In order to attract more merchants to settle in Yintai, the plaintiff signed a lease agreement with the defendant on 20 14, and the defendant's "Nalan Restaurant" was the first merchant to settle in Yintai in the form of secondary investment. In return, the plaintiff promised to give the defendant electricity and water concessions, and give them quarterly. After the defendant moved in, the plaintiff always fulfilled his promise and did not ask the defendant for rent. The plaintiff changed the terms of the lease contract signed by both parties with practical actions, and the contents of the written lease contract are no longer binding on both parties. 20 15 12. The plaintiff failed to bring enough people to the merchants due to poor management, resulting in serious losses for the defendant. After consultation, the plaintiff proposed to adjust the defendant's business on the fourth floor, for which the defendant paid the rent of the shop on the fourth floor 15000 yuan, and signed the procedures for withdrawing the rent on the first floor. However, after the defendant paid the fourth floor rent, the plaintiff broke his promise and asked the defendant to pay the first floor rent. The plaintiff's behavior violated the facts and the agreement between the two parties. 2. The original application amount is obviously too high, which is inconsistent with the actual situation. 20 15 12, both the original defendant and the plaintiff have gone through the withdrawal procedures, and the plaintiff's behavior has clearly recognized that the settlement date of the relevant expenses of both parties is 20 15 12, and no additional expenses should be generated thereafter. At the same time, according to the contract signed by both parties, the defendant should not pay the rent and other expenses after withdrawing the cabinet, but the original request for the defendant to pay the rent and other expenses until February 2065438+2006 is obviously inconsistent with the facts, and the expenses such as liquidated damages for delayed performance calculated on this basis are also obviously inconsistent with the reality. 3. The plaintiff once proposed to the defendant a plan to operate on the fourth floor, and the defendant paid the fourth floor rent 15000 yuan for this, demanding that the plaintiff return it to the defendant. 4. The contract involved in this case belongs to the format contract issued by the plaintiff, which is applicable to all merchants operating in the plaintiff's place, and the clauses that aggravate the defendant's liability should be deemed invalid according to law.