Civil Judgment

(2016) Ji 0202 Minchu 2821

Plaintiff: Tangshan Yintai Department Store Co., Ltd, with its residence at No. 4, No. 2, Xinhua West Road, Lunan District, Tangshan City.

Legal representative: Chen Xiaodong, position chairman.

Attorney: g moumou, hebei jihua law firm tangshan branch lawyer.

Defendant: W Moumou, female, **** born on ** month **, Han nationality, live in Tangshan city Lubei district.

Appointed agent: X so-and-so, Hebei Tangsheng law firm lawyer.

Appointed agent: D Moumou, Hebei Tangsheng Law Firm lawyer.

Plaintiff Tangshan Yintai Department Store Co., Ltd. and the defendant W Wang Yan lease contract dispute, this court on October 19, 2016, after filing, according to law, applying the ordinary procedure, open court for hearing. Plaintiff Tangshan yintai department store limited company entrusted agent G moumou, defendant W moumou, entrusted agent X moumou, D moumou are present in court to participate in the proceedings. This case is now the end of the trial.

The plaintiff Tangshan yintai department store co., ltd to this court put forward the lawsuit request: 1.cancel the plaintiff and the defendant on the first floor of the expo plaza in tangshan city, store 156 signed business brand for "nalan bistro" of the "yintai city lease contract"; 2.order the defendant to the plaintiff to pay the rent of 95,472 yuan, the comprehensive service management fee of 88,924.59 yuan, the total amount of 184,396.59 yuan (). As of February 29, 2016); 3. Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff 16,964.49 yuan of liquidated damages for delayed performance from March 1, 2016 to May 31, 2016; 4. All litigation costs in this case shall be borne by the defendant. Facts and reasons: in 2014, the plaintiff and the defendant signed the "yintai city lease contract", agreed that the defendant leased the plaintiff in tangshan city expo plaza one layer of store 156, business brand for "nalan small hall". Lease term for three years (from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2017). The rent is calculated as follows: the monthly rent for the first and second years is RMB60 per square meter; the monthly rent for the third year is RMB75 per square meter. And in each of the 1st to 3rd lease years the Defendant will calculate the draw rent at 15% of the pre-tax turnover of the store during the operation period of the house every month, and take one quarter (three months) as a rent payment period. At the same time, the contract agreed that, in order to support the defendant's business, the plaintiff exempted the defendant from 3 months of rent, specifically for the first lease year of the 10th and 11th month of rent and the second lease year of the 1st month of rent. Article 6 of the Contract stipulated that the Defendant shall pay RMB 15,912 to the Plaintiff as a performance bond within three working days after the signing of this Contract. Article 27 agreed that the court of jurisdiction for disputes between the parties under this contract shall be the court where the house is located. At the same time, the parties entered into a property contract, which stipulated that the comprehensive service management fee was calculated according to the floor area of the suite, RMB45 per square meter per month from the date of rent, i.e., RMB5,967 per month, and agreed that the Defendant should pay RMB11,934 to the Plaintiff as a deposit for the comprehensive service management fee within five working days from the date of the signing of the Contract. After the signing of the said contract, the defendant moved in according to the agreement, and the plaintiff fulfilled all the obligations according to the contract, but the defendant failed to pay the rent in time according to the agreement, which has constituted a fundamental breach of contract, and as of May 31, 2016, the defendant *** owed the plaintiff a total of RMB201,361.08 for various fees, and after repeated reminders by the plaintiff, the defendant has been delaying the payment, which has seriously infringed on the lawful rights and interests of the plaintiff.

Defendant W Moumou argued, 1. The plaintiff claim is inconsistent with the facts, the defendant has no reason to pay rent, the court should reject the plaintiff's request. The defendant is the first batch of yintai department store tenants, because of the yintai department store crowd scarcity caused by the defendant operating at a serious loss, the plaintiff proposed to transform its first floor into a style street in order to attract customers, in order to attract more merchants stationed in yintai, the plaintiff in 2014 and the defendant agreement, signed a lease agreement, will be operated by the defendant, "nalan pavilion" in the form of the second investment as the first stationed in the first floor of the yintai as a return to the plaintiff Commitment to give the defendant electricity and water concessions, and in the form of quarterly rent reduction for the defendant. After the defendant stationed, the plaintiff has been in accordance with the commitment to fulfill, did not put forward the defendant's rent requirements, the plaintiff is the actual action of the two sides signed the lease contract terms of the change, the written lease contract is no longer binding on both sides. in December 2015, due to the plaintiff's poor operation failed to bring enough traffic to the tenants, resulting in the defendant's serious losses, after negotiation, the plaintiff put forward to defendant adjusted to the fourth layer of the Operation, for which the defendant delivered 15,000 yuan of the fourth floor store rent, and signed a layer of withdrawal procedures. But the defendant delivered four rent, the plaintiff violated the promise, and asked the defendant to pay a layer of rent. The plaintiff behavior contrary to the facts and the agreement. 2. the plaintiff claimed that the amount is obviously too high, and the actual inconsistency. in December 2015 the plaintiff and the defendant have handled the withdrawal formalities, the plaintiff's behavior has been clearly recognized by the two sides of the relevant expenses settlement date for December 2015, thereafter should not produce additional costs. At the same time in accordance with the contract signed by both parties, the defendant should not pay rent and other costs, and the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay to February 2016 rent and other costs are obviously inconsistent with the facts, according to the calculation of delayed performance of liquidated damages and other costs are also obviously inconsistent with the actual. 3. The plaintiff had proposed to the defendant to the fourth floor of the business program, the defendant paid the fourth floor of the rent of 15,000 yuan. Require the plaintiff to return to the defendant. 4. The contract belongs to the plaintiff issued a form of contract, applicable to the plaintiff in the operation of the various tenants, which aggravates the defendant's responsibility should be recognized as invalid.