Civil Appeal Petition

Civil Appeal Petition

Appellant (First-instance Counterclaim Plaintiff, Original Defendant): Zhang San, Male, born on June 6, 1966, Han Chinese ID Number: 431111111111111111 Residence: Jade City, Facai Street, Coconut Village, Facai Granite Quarry

Appellee (First-instance Counterclaim Defendant, Original Plaintiff): Jade City Facai Granite Quarry Organization Code: L111111 Residence: Jade City, Facai Street, Coconut Village Managing Partner: Li Si

The appellant, dissatisfied with the civil judgment (2012) MM Civil Initial No. 888 issued by the Jade City People’s Court in the contract dispute case against the appellee, hereby files an appeal in accordance with the law.

Appeal Requests:

1. Revoke the first, second, and fourth items of the judgment (2012) MM Civil Initial No. 888 and amend the judgment accordingly.
2. Legally dismiss the appellee’s claims against the appellant.
3. Order the appellee to bear the litigation costs of both the first and second instances.

Facts and Reasons:

The first-instance court made errors in evidence recognition, leading to incorrect factual findings and improper application of the law. The specific reasons are as follows:

I. The first-instance court’s determination of the timing of the quarry’s safety hazards and the resulting liability lacks factual and legal basis.

1. The quarry’s safety hazards existed before the appellant took over.

Due to insufficient understanding of safety production laws and regulations and lack of experience in quarry management before taking over, the appellant unfortunately fell into the appellee’s trap and contracted a quarry with severe safety hazards, signing a contract that was fraudulent and manifestly unfair.

During the management process, the appellant was reminded by quarry workers that the quarry had serious safety hazards long before the original quarry manager contacted the appellant to take over. The quarry was hastily contracted to the appellant just over a month after receiving a rectification notice from the safety production management department. From the issuance of the rectification notice to the signing of the contract, the quarry’s safety production conditions never met the standards.

In fact, the areas identified by relevant departments as having safety hazards all existed before the appellant took over. In these areas, the appellant only engaged in renovation activities to meet safety standards after taking over. Unfortunately, the appellee had conducted extensive destructive over-mining in these areas before the appellant took over, making renovation difficult and costly. The appellant had to focus on mining in areas that met safety production conditions while trying to renovate the existing safety hazards.

The appellant later learned that in May 2011, relevant departments had issued a rectification notice due to the quarry’s failure to meet safety production standards, but this fact was concealed from the appellant by the appellee throughout the process. According to relevant laws, if a quarry fails to rectify safety hazards within the specified period after receiving a rectification notice, it will be ordered to stop production and business for rectification. The appellant was unaware of the rectification notice, and Zhang San, Li Si, and others with legal safety responsibilities never informed the appellant of this situation. Only five months after the appellant took over, relevant departments conducted an inspection and issued a stop production notice, catching the appellant completely unprepared.

Due to the short duration of the appellant’s contract and the large scale of the quarry, there are still many areas with safety hazards that existed before the appellant took over and have not been renovated. This directly proves that the first-instance court’s determination of the timing of the quarry’s safety hazards is incorrect.

2. The appellee committed fraud in the contract with the appellant.

Before the appellant took over the quarry, the quarry’s management and operation were already in serious trouble and difficult to continue. The main reason was that the appellee, disregarding safety production standards, seriously violated laws and regulations by over-mining in a destructive manner, making it extremely difficult to renovate all mining areas to meet safety production standards again. Therefore, the appellee intended to transfer the risk and defraud the contractor. However, the appellee lured the unsuspecting appellant into contracting the quarry by claiming that shareholder disputes made management difficult and they wanted to abandon the quarry, and signed a manifestly unfair contract. Later, when the appellant legally mined in areas outside the original quarry’s severe safety hazards, Zhang San and others continuously complained to relevant government departments about the quarry’s safety hazards, leading to the quarry’s shutdown. Their intention was to use public power, taking advantage of the appellant’s lack of experience, to create a false legal appearance and embezzle the 905,896.15 yuan owed to the appellant, the risk deposit, and the appellant’s investment in renovating the quarry to meet safety production standards.

The appellee’s complaints to various government departments about the quarry’s safety hazards were actually caused by the appellee before contracting the quarry. Especially Zhang San and others, who were responsible for safety production, were fully aware of the quarry’s safety production conditions but did not actively assist the appellant in implementing safety production management. Instead, they falsely accused the quarry of safety hazards to shut it down, creating management difficulties and forcing the appellant to breach the contract and return the quarry. Their intentions are obvious. The appellant invested heavily in renovating the quarry with severe safety hazards delivered by the appellee through fraud, hoping to recoup the initial renovation investment through long-term operation. However, the appellee, intending to defraud the appellant, turned the tables after the appellant’s substantial investment, aiming to leave the appellant with nothing.

The first-instance court, in determining contract liability, completely ignored the appellee’s malice and fault in signing the contract and ultimately held the appellant fully responsible, which the appellant finds difficult to understand.

3. Zhang San and others have legal responsibilities for the quarry’s safety hazards, which do not transfer due to the quarry’s contracting.

The “Measures for the Administration of the Transfer of Exploration Rights and Mining Rights” and the “Mineral Resources Law of the People’s Republic of China” stipulate that “it is prohibited to transfer mining rights to others through contracting or other means.” Similarly, the “Work Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China” clearly states that for dangerous projects, production and business units shall not contract or lease production and business projects, places, or equipment to units or individuals that do not have safety production conditions or corresponding qualifications. However, the first-instance court, based on the contract being the true expression of both parties’ intentions and not violating mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, ruled that the “Orange City Dashan Facai Granite Quarry Contract” was legal and valid. From this, it can be inferred that the first-instance court believes that the special law’s provisions on the transfer of mining rights do not conflict with the general provisions of the contract law on contract formation, meaning that the appellee only contracted the quarry’s management rights to the appellant, not the mining rights. Since the first-instance court ruled that the appellant did not obtain mining rights and the subcontracting was legal, the first-instance court must, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned special laws, legally determine that the appellant, who does not have safety production conditions and qualifications, shall not bear full responsibility for the quarry’s safety production. Otherwise, the contract must be deemed invalid due to violating the mandatory provisions of the “Work Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China.” Unfortunately, the first-instance court judge neither ruled the contract invalid nor inferred from “daily life experience” and “judicial professional ethics” the obvious conclusion that the appellant, without safety production conditions and qualifications, does not need to bear full responsibility for the quarry’s safety production.

The quarry contracted by the appellant has always been owned by Zhang San and others. According to the “Work Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China,” in the absence of safety production conditions and qualifications, Zhang San, as the quarry’s responsible person, must be fully responsible for the quarry’s safety production work. Additionally, in the safety responsibility personnel registration of relevant departments, it has always been Zhang San, the quarry’s responsible person, and Li Si and others, the safety production management personnel, who have passed the assessment by relevant departments as required by the “Work Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China.” Moreover, during the appellant’s contracting of the quarry, any responsibilities related to safety production, such as accepting safety production inspections by relevant departments and receiving and using explosives required for production, were handled by Zhang San, Li Si, and others designated by the appellee, who have specific legal responsibilities. The appellant, without legal safety production supervision responsibilities, was never involved in these matters.

Zhang San and Li Si, fearing their specific legal obligations, objectively could not allow the appellant to participate in safety production management. A typical example is the inspection of the quarry’s safety production conditions by relevant departments on December 27, 2012, which was triggered by complaints from Zhang San and others. The inspection process was also accompanied by Zhang San and others, who confirmed and signed the inspection results and accepted the handling by relevant departments. The appellant was never involved in this process.

The appellant has always passively borne the responsibility for safety production renovation but has never been able to actively participate in safety hazard supervision and management. This is a great injustice caused by the other party’s fraudulent contract behavior.

Zhang San, Li Si, and others not only objectively bear specific legal safety management responsibilities but also subjectively intend to fulfill these responsibilities according to the law. This clear alignment of subjective and objective facts is very clear, but the first-instance court inexplicably held the appellant, who is unrelated to safety production management, responsible for the shutdown caused by safety hazards, which the appellant finds difficult to understand.

II. The first-instance court’s determination of the contract fee and its calculation method lacks factual and legal basis.

1. The basis for the first-instance court’s determination that the appellant should bear the contract fee during the shutdown period does not exist.

During the performance of the contract between the appellant and the appellee, the quarry’s shutdown was caused by the appellee’s fraudulent intent and the dereliction of duty by the personnel designated by the appellee with specific legal responsibilities. Therefore, the contract fee during the shutdown period should be borne by the responsible parties, namely the appellee and the personnel designated by the appellant with specific legal responsibilities.

In fact, at the end of 2011, after the quarry was ordered to stop production by relevant departments, the appellant had already noticed the appellee’s fraudulent behavior in the contract. After serious negotiations with the appellee, the appellant believed that the quarry contracted by the appellee had serious safety hazards before the contract was signed. If the appellant continued to contract the quarry, he would have to renovate the areas with existing safety hazards for the appellee. At this point, the appellee should at least waive the rent for January and February 2012 and reduce the rent in the future to offset the renovation costs for the original safety hazard areas. Later, the appellee agreed to temporarily suspend the rent for January and February 2012 and reduce the original rent of 380,000 yuan per month to 300,000 yuan per month.

Due to the appellee’s fault, the quarry was shut down from December 27, 2011, to April 30, 2012. The rent for these four months should be borne by the appellee, but the first-instance court held that the appellant should bear it. Does the appellant need to compensate the appellee and the responsible personnel for their fraudulent and faulty behavior?

2. The first-instance court’s determination of the contract fee calculation period lacks basis.

On May 1, 2012, the appellee issued a “Notice,” informing the appellant to leave the site, cut off water and electricity, and stationed four people at the quarry to intimidate and threaten the appellant and quarry workers from continuing to renovate and operate the quarry. The quarry workers were forced to settle accounts and leave, and the appellant and his family were at a loss. At this point, the quarry completely stopped production and could not operate, and the contract was completely impossible to perform, leading to a complete breakdown of the contractual relationship. The first-instance court ignored this fact and forcibly held that the appellant should bear the rent from January to July 2012, which the appellant finds extremely difficult to understand.

During the shutdown period, the quarry did not actually operate, and in fact, the appellant was paying for the appellee’s fraudulent and faulty behavior. The renovation investment during this period was particularly huge, but unfortunately, the safety hazard areas left by the appellee were too many, and the appellant did his best but still could not complete the renovation work. At this point, the appellee should have waived the contract fee for this period and fulfilled safety management responsibilities to assist in the renovation. However, the appellee, driven by greed, repeatedly threatened to terminate the contract, confiscate the deposit, and collect the contract fee, and finally used illegal means to drive away workers, cut off water and electricity, and forcibly obstruct the appellant from continuing to perform the contract.

Since May 1, 2012, after the contractual relationship between the appellant and the appellee broke down, the appellant continued to live and reside at the quarry to protect his nine months of hard work and huge financial investment, which is a form of private relief. If the appellant had left the quarry under the threat of the appellee’s hired thugs, not only would his huge investment have been in vain, but it would also have disgraced his identity as a retired soldier. Therefore, he continued to live and reside at the quarry under great pressure and promptly contacted relevant government departments for coordination, hoping for their help. However, after several months of mediation by relevant departments, it ultimately failed due to the appellee’s excessive demands. From May 1, 2012, to the present, the appellee has hired people to watch the appellant’s residence day and night, causing great mental harm to the appellant and his family. The appellee’s despicable behavior is truly villainous.

Therefore, the appellant believes that the contract fee from January to April 2012 should be borne by the appellee by waiving the appellant’s payment. From May 1, 2012, to the present, since the contractual relationship has completely broken down and there is no possibility of contract performance, the appellant, left alone, has been living in the extremely简陋的 quarry dormitory in the wilderness with no water or electricity, accompanied only by chickens and dogs every day. The first-instance court’s forcible determination that the appellant should pay such a huge contract fee for living at the quarry has no factual or legal basis and is extremely unfair to the appellant.

III. The first-instance court’s determination of the responsible party for the necessary investment to ensure safety production is incorrect.

According to the “Work Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the necessary investment for a quarry to meet safety production conditions should be guaranteed by the “decision-making body, main responsible person, or individual business investor of the production and business unit, who shall bear the responsibility for the consequences caused by insufficient investment in safety production.” Based on the reality of the quarry’s operation mode, since the appellant is only responsible for the quarry’s management and operation and does not have decision-making power over major quarry matters, he is not the legal “decision-making body.” Similarly, the quarry’s main responsible person is nominally and substantially Zhang San, who is registered on the organization code certificate and other certificates. As for the individual business investor, it is undoubtedly Zhang San and the other three quarry shareholders. The appellant’s investment in the quarry is entirely for normal human and machinery operation and management needs, which is completely different from the responsible parties corresponding to the safety production funds stipulated by law. The three responsible parties stipulated by law—the actual investor with safety production conditions and qualifications, the main responsible person, and the decision-making body—are all unrelated to the appellant.

In addition, the appellant’s investment in meeting the quarry’s safety production conditions was entirely advanced due to the appellee’s fraud and fault. The reasons have been detailed in the first and second reasons and will not be repeated here.

Therefore, the first-instance court’s determination that the appellant’s investment in ensuring safety production should be borne by the appellant himself has no legal or factual basis.

In summary, the first-instance court ignored facts and laws, favored the appellee, and made incorrect factual findings and legal applications. Therefore, the appellant requests the court to fully investigate and consider all the facts of the case, amend the judgment, and order the appellee to bear all litigation costs of the first and second instances.

Respectfully submitted to

The Intermediate People’s Court of Tourism CityFair Contract.

During the management process, it was brought to the attention of the quarry workers that the quarry had serious safety hazards long before the appellee proactively contacted the appellant for contracting. Merely over a month after the safety production management department issued a rectification notice, the quarry was hastily contracted to the appellant. From the issuance of the rectification notice by the relevant departments to the signing of the contract, the quarry’s safety production conditions consistently failed to meet standards.

In fact, the areas identified by the relevant departments as having safety production hazards all existed before the appellant contracted the quarry. These areas, on one hand, were difficult to continue mining due to the appellee’s previous destructive over-mining, and on the other hand, posed significant mining hazards. Therefore, since the day of contracting, the appellant has only engaged in renovation activities to meet relevant safety standards and has not actually exacerbated the safety hazards in these areas. Based on this, the appellant had no choice but to apply to the relevant departments for a change in the mining area scope to mine ores in areas that meet safety production conditions and to use the profits from the latter to renovate the original safety hazard issues.

The appellant later learned that in May 2011, the relevant departments had issued a notice ordering rectification within a time limit due to the quarry’s safety production conditions not meeting standards, but this fact was concealed by the appellee from the beginning to the end. According to relevant laws, the relevant departments would only order a shutdown and rectification if the quarry failed to rectify within the time limit after being notified for not meeting safety production conditions. The appellant was unaware of the rectification notice, and individuals with statutory safety responsibilities, such as Li Si and Wang Wu, never informed the appellant of this situation. It was only five months after the appellant contracted the quarry that the relevant departments came for an inspection and issued a shutdown notice, catching the appellant completely unprepared.

Due to the short duration of the appellant’s contract and the large scale of the quarry, there are still many areas with safety production hazards that existed before the contract and have not been renovated. This directly proves that the first-instance court’s determination of the time when the quarry’s safety hazards formed was incorrect.

2. The appellee is suspected of fraud in the contracting contract with the appellant.

Before the appellant contracted the quarry, the quarry’s management had serious issues that made it difficult to continue. The main reason was that the appellee, disregarding safety production standards, severely violated laws and regulations by over-mining in a destructive manner, making it extremely difficult to renovate all mining faces to meet safety production standards again, thus intending to transfer the risk and defraud the contractor. However, the appellee, using the discord among shareholders and management difficulties as bait, induced the uninformed appellant to contract the quarry and sign an unfair contract. Later, the appellant, with a mindset of trying to salvage a hopeless situation, applied for a change in the mining area scope, which immediately improved the quarry’s operational efficiency. At this point, Li Si and others, driven by greed, continuously complained to the relevant government departments about the quarry’s safety hazards, leading to the quarry’s shutdown. They merely wanted to use public power, taking advantage of the appellant’s lack of experience, to create a legal facade and forcibly reclaim the quarry, which was now much more profitable than before the appellant’s contract.

The appellee’s complaints to various government departments about the quarry’s safety hazards were actually caused by the appellee before the contract. Especially Li Si and others, who were responsible for safety production, were well aware of the quarry’s safety production conditions but did not actively assist the appellant in implementing safety production management. Instead, they falsely accused others and complained everywhere to shut down the quarry, creating management difficulties to force the appellant to breach the contract and reclaim the quarry. The intent of such behavior is obvious. The appellant invested heavily in renovating the quarry with serious safety hazards maliciously delivered by the appellee, hoping to gradually recoup the initial renovation investment through long-term operations. However, the appellee, intending to defraud the appellant, turned the tables after the appellant’s significant investment, aiming to leave the appellant with nothing.

The first-instance court, in determining the contract liability, completely ignored the appellee’s malice and fault at the time of signing the contract and ultimately held the appellant fully responsible, which the appellant finds difficult to understand.

3. Part of the contract content is invalid due to violation of mandatory legal provisions.

According to the “Safety Management and Supervision Regulations for Small Open-pit Quarries,” the person in charge must pass the safety production supervision and management department’s assessment and obtain a safety qualification certificate before taking office. According to the “Safety Production License Regulations,” one of the conditions for an enterprise to obtain a safety production license is that the person in charge and safety production management personnel have passed the assessment. However, the contract assigns all safety production responsibilities during the contract period to the appellant, who has neither obtained a safety qualification certificate nor passed the relevant department’s assessment, which is illegal. If the first-instance court deems this clause in the contract valid, it must acknowledge that the appellant is not the “person in charge” of the quarry as defined by law. The quarry’s person in charge should be Li Si, Wang Wu, and others who have passed the safety production supervision and management department’s assessment and obtained safety qualification certificates. However, the first-instance court forcibly determined that the appellant is the quarry’s sole safety responsibility person in charge, a contradictory determination that is clearly illegal.

Therefore, the clause in the contract regarding safety responsibility should obviously be invalid.

4. Li Si and others have statutory responsibilities for the quarry’s safety production, which do not transfer due to the signing of the contract.

The “Measures for the Administration of the Transfer of Exploration Rights and Mining Rights” and the “Mineral Resources Law of the People’s Republic of China” stipulate that “it is prohibited to transfer mining rights to others through contracting or other means.” Similarly, the “Work Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China” clearly stipulates that for hazardous projects, production and operation units must not contract or lease production and operation projects, places, or equipment to units or individuals without safety production conditions or corresponding qualifications. However, the first-instance court, based on the contract being the true expression of both parties’ intentions and not violating mandatory laws and administrative regulations, determined that the “Contract for the Contracting of the Yucishi Facai Dada Granite Quarry” is legal and valid. Therefore, it can be inferred that the first-instance court believes that the special law’s provisions on the transfer of mining rights do not conflict with the general provisions of the contract law on contract formation, meaning that the appellee only contracted the quarry’s management rights to the appellant, not the mining rights. Since the first-instance court determined that the appellant did not obtain mining rights and the subcontracting is legal, the first-instance court must, according to the aforementioned special laws, legally determine that the appellant, without safety production conditions and qualifications, cannot bear the full responsibility for the quarry’s safety production. Otherwise, the contract must be deemed invalid due to violating the mandatory provisions of the aforementioned laws. Unfortunately, the first-instance court judge neither determined the contract invalid nor inferred from “daily life experience” and “judicial professional ethics” the obvious conclusion that the appellant, without safety production conditions and qualifications, does not need to bear the full responsibility for the quarry’s safety production.

The quarry contracted by the appellant has always been owned by Li Si and others, with Li Si as the primary safety responsibility person and Wang Wu, hired by the appellee, as the quarry manager. What the appellant obtained based on the contract is not the complete management rights as defined by law. Without safety production conditions and qualifications, according to the “Work Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the quarry’s responsible persons Li Si, Wang Wu, and others must fully bear the responsibility for the quarry’s safety production. Additionally, in the relevant departments’ safety responsibility personnel registration, it has always been Li Si, the quarry’s responsible person, and Wang Wu, the safety production management personnel, who have passed the relevant departments’ assessments. Moreover, during the appellant’s contracting of the quarry, any safety production responsibilities were always handled by Li Si, Wang Wu, and others, such as accepting safety production inspections from relevant departments and obtaining and using explosives needed for production from relevant departments. Since the appellant obtained incomplete management rights, which do not include statutory safety production management rights, the appellant was never able to participate in these safety production management affairs.

Li Si and Wang Wu, fearing specific legal obligations, objectively could not allow the unqualified appellant to participate in safety production management. This resulted in the appellant passively bearing safety production renovation obligations without ever enjoying safety production management rights, which is a significant injustice caused by the other party’s contract fraud.

Li Si and Wang Wu not only objectively bear specific legal safety management responsibilities but also subjectively intend to fulfill these safety management responsibilities according to law. This consistency of subjective and objective facts is very clear, but the first-instance court determined that the appellant, unrelated to safety production management, independently bears the responsibility for the shutdown caused by safety hazards, which the appellant finds extremely difficult to understand.

5. The first-instance court’s determination of the conditions for contract termination contains factual and legal errors.

The first-instance court’s determination that “after New Year’s Day 2012, the defendant violated the contract by failing to pay the contract fee and excavator supply fee for two months, constituting a fundamental breach” is based on a wrong premise.

Undoubtedly, the reason the appellant did not pay the rent for January-February 2012 was due to the appellee’s fault. However, even according to the contract and supplementary agreement, the first-instance court’s determination is a clear infringement on the parties’ autonomy. The contract stipulates that “if the contract fee is not paid for more than two months… the party A has the right to terminate the contract,” indicating that not every two-month delay in payment will automatically terminate the contract. The right to terminate the contract belongs to the appellee, meaning the appellee can choose to terminate or not terminate the contract. According to the supplementary agreement reached on March 17, 2012, the appellee did not terminate the contract when it could have but agreed to suspend the rent for January-February 2012, temporarily not collecting the rent for these two months to maintain the stability of the contract’s continuation. The first-instance court ignored this important fact, forcibly determined the appellant’s breach based on incorrect facts, showing obvious bias towards the appellee.

On May 1, 2012, the appellee issued a “Notice,” informing the appellant to leave the site, cut off water and electricity, and stationed four people at the quarry to intimidate and threaten the appellant and quarry workers from continuing renovations and operations. The quarry workers were forced to leave after settling accounts, and the appellant and family were at a loss. At this point, the appellee’s unilateral breach caused the quarry to completely shut down, making contract performance impossible and the contract relationship completely broken. The appellee’s unilateral termination and breach directly triggered the contract’s clause that “if party A unilaterally terminates the contract during party B’s contracting period, it is also a breach and must compensate party B for the investment during the contracting period and return the risk deposit.” The first-instance court, despite the appellee’s remorse during court mediation and even deciding to compensate the appellant 800,000 yuan, ultimately ruled that the appellant needed to compensate the appellee over 820,000 yuan, a decision that left the appellant heartbroken and extremely difficult to understand.

II. The first-instance court’s determination of the contract fee and its calculation method lacks factual and legal basis.

1. The basis for the first-instance court’s determination that the appellant bears the contract fee during the shutdown period does not exist.

The first-instance court determined that the appellant’s mining activities during the contract period caused major accident hazards leading to the shutdown, which is completely unfounded. During the contract performance period, the quarry’s shutdown was jointly caused by the appellee’s fraudulent intent and the dereliction of duty by the appellee’s designated personnel with statutory responsibilities. The appellant could not and did not participate in statutory safety production management. The shutdown from December 27, 2011, to April 30, 2012, was entirely due to the appellee’s fault, and the involved contract fee should be borne by the appellee and the designated personnel with statutory responsibilities.

In fact, by the end of 2011, after the quarry was ordered to shut down by the relevant departments, the appellant had some awareness of the appellee’s fraudulent behavior in the contract. After serious negotiations with the appellee, it was believed that the quarry had serious safety production hazards before the contract, and if the appellant continued to contract the quarry, it would have to renovate the original safety hazard areas for the appellee. Based on the appellee’s fault, the appellee should at least exempt the rent for January-February 2012 and reduce future rents to offset the renovation costs for the original safety hazard areas. Later, the appellee agreed to temporarily suspend the rent for January-February 2012 and reduce the original rent from 380,000 yuan/month to 300,000 yuan/month.

2. The first-instance court’s determination of the contract fee calculation period is unfounded.

The appellee severely breached the contract on May 1, 2012, but the first-instance court ignored this fact and forcibly determined that the appellant needs to bear the rent from January to July 2012, which the appellant finds extremely difficult to understand.

During the shutdown period, the quarry had no actual operations, and in fact, the appellant was paying for the appellee’s fraudulent behavior, with particularly large renovation investments. However, due to the many safety hazard areas left by the appellee, the appellant’s best efforts still did not complete the renovation work. At this point, the appellee should have fully exempted the contract fee for this period and fulfilled safety management responsibilities to assist in renovations. However, driven by greed, the appellee repeatedly threatened to terminate the contract, confiscate the deposit, and collect the contract fee, and ultimately used illegal means to drive away workers, cut off water and electricity, and forcibly obstruct the appellant from continuing to perform the contract.

After the contract relationship between the appellant and the appellee broke down on May 1, 2012, the appellant continued to live at the quarry to protect the nine months of hard work and significant financial investment, which is a form of private relief. If the appellant had left the quarry under the threat of the appellee’s hired thugs, not only would the significant investment be wasted, but the appellant’s identity as a veteran would also be disgraced. Therefore, under great pressure, the appellant continued to live at the quarry and promptly contacted relevant government departments for coordination, hoping for government assistance. However, after several months of mediation by the relevant departments, it ultimately failed due to the appellee’s excessive demands. Since May 1, 2012, the appellee has hired people to watch the appellant’s residence day and night, causing great mental harm to the appellant and family. The appellee’s despicable behavior is truly villainous.

Therefore, the appellant believes that the contract fee from January to April 2012 should be borne by the appellee by exempting the appellant from payment. Since May 1, 2012, as the contract relationship has completely broken down and contract performance is no longer possible, the appellant, left alone, has been living in the extremely简陋的 quarry dormitory in the wilderness, with no water or electricity, accompanied only by chickens and dogs every day. The first-instance court’s forcible determination that the appellant needs to pay such a huge contract fee for living at the quarry has no factual or legal basis and is extremely unfair to the appellant.

III. The first-instance court’s determination of the responsible party for the necessary funds to ensure safety production is incorrect.

According to the “Work Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the necessary funds for the quarry’s safety production conditions should be guaranteed by the “decision-making body, person in charge, or individual investor of the production and operation unit, who shall bear the responsibility for the consequences of insufficient funds for safety production.” Given the quarry’s operational reality, since the appellant is only responsible for the quarry’s management and does not have decision-making power over major quarry matters, the appellant is not the “decision-making body” as defined by law. Similarly, the quarry’s person in charge is nominally and substantially Li Si, registered on the organization code certificate and other licenses. As for the individual investor, it is undoubtedly Li Si and the other three quarry shareholders. The appellant’s investment in the quarry is entirely for normal human and machinery management needs, which is completely different from the obligations of the responsible parties for safety production funds as defined by law. The three responsible parties defined by law—the actual investor, person in charge, and decision-making body with safety production conditions and qualifications—are all unrelated to the appellant.

Additionally, the funds the appellant invested to meet the quarry’s safety production conditions were entirely advanced due to the appellee’s fraud and fault. The reasons have been detailed in the first and second reasons and will not be repeated.

Therefore, the first-instance court’s determination that the appellant should bear the funds invested to ensure safety production has no legal or factual basis.

IV. The first-instance court’s determination of the contract fee paid by the appellant after New Year’s Day 2012 is incorrect.

According to the fourth clause of the contract regarding the rights and obligations of party A, the appellee is responsible for paying the land resource fee, which is paid by the appellant first and then deducted from the contract fee. The first-instance court, ignoring the clear facts, forcibly deducted this 60,000 yuan fee from the contract fee paid by the appellant, which is a clear factual error. Such severe bias towards the appellee is numerous in the first-instance judgment. The most typical example is that the first-instance court, while severely ignoring the fact that the quarry had serious safety hazards before the contract, inferred based on “judicial professional ethics, logical reasoning, and daily life experience” that the safety hazards “should have been formed during the defendant’s contracting period,” a severely distorted fact, and then based all other dispute determinations on this wrong conclusion. The first-instance court’s actions inevitably raise serious doubts about its openness, fairness, and impartiality.

In summary, the first-instance court ignored facts and laws, showed bias towards the appellee, and made incorrect factual and legal determinations. Therefore, the appellant requests the court to fully investigate and consider all case facts, overturn the case, and order the appellee to bear all litigation costs for the first and second instances.

Respectfully submitted to the Tourism City Intermediate People’s Court.