APPEAL
上诉人（一审被告）：[ ]贸易公司，住所地[ ].
法定代表人：苏庆国，公司经理。
The Appellant （The defendant1 in the first instance）：
被上诉人（一审原告）：[ ]工程总公司第一工程公司，住所地[ ].
法定代表人：柴跃进，公司经理。
The Appellee （The plaintiff in the first instance）：
上诉人因出租合同一案，不服太原铁路运输法院（2001）太铁经初字第6号《民事判决书》，现依法提起上诉。
The Appellant declines to accept the Civil Judgment2 with a number of （2001） Tai-Tie-Jing-Chu-Zi No 6 passed by Taiyuan Railway Transportation Court, in respect of the lease contract case, and hereby files the appeal according to law.
上诉请求：
APPEAL
1.撤销太原铁路运输法院（2001）太铁经初字第6号《民事判决书》。
2.依法认定、改判1998年5月14日上诉人与被上诉人签订的房子出租合同有效。
3.被上诉人承担违约责任，并履行98年合同义务后，赞同解除合同。
上诉事实和理由：
APPELATE FACTS AND RE应用商店优化NS：
第一，上诉人对本案的基本和主导看法：
Firstly, the Appellant's basic and leading opinions about the case follow：
上诉人觉得，依据《合同法》主张的当事人意思高度自治和契约自由的理念，与现在司法实践中的主流执法观念，上诉人与被上诉人之间共存在三份合同，均应认定为有效合同。该三份合同的主体、标的物、价款基本一样。
The Appellant maintains that in accordance with the mentalities3 of highly autonomous4 expression of intentions and contract freedom called for in the Contract Law, as well as the mainstream5 law-enforcing mentalities in judicial6 practice at present, there exist three contracts between the Appellant and the Appellee, which shall be deemed to be valid7. The subjects, matters and considerations involved in the three contracts are basically identical.
1、一审法院认定1998年5月14日上诉人与被上诉人签订的房子出租合同为无效合同，与法无据。
I. The first-instance court ascertained8 that the house lease contract executed between the Appellant and the Appellee on May 14, 1998 was invalid9. This ruling is not law-based.
2、法院以被上诉人已履行了合同大多数义务，上诉人在双方订立合同时已在用出租房子为由认定上诉人先履行抗辩权不可以成立，这明显违反了《合同法》有关先履行抗辩权的规定。
II. The court ascertained that the Appellant's exercise of the right to avoid performing the contract as a defense10 against the Appellee's breach11 by reason that the Appellee has performed a majority of the contractual obligations and the Appellant was using the lease house when the parties entered into the contract. This ruling is in material violation12 of the provision of the Contract Law in respect of the defensive13 refusal to perform the contract.
第二，上诉人基于并不完全认同的一审法院判决的什么时间抗辩看法：
Secondly14, the following are some defensive opinions of the Appellant based on the first-instance judgment which cannot be fully15 accepted.
1、一审法院以2001年后，上诉人与被上诉人之间存在事实出租关系为由，判决上诉人比照2000年合同的租金标准承担租金，与法无据。
I. The ruling of the first-instance court ordering the Appellant to pay the rental16 according to the rental standard prescribed in the contract of 2000 by reason that the Appellant was in an actual lease relationship with the Appellee subsequent to 2001 is not law-based.
2、一审法院对被上诉人未履约的13平方米问题的判决，存在明显的执法错误。
II. The first-instance judgment on the 13 square meters in respect of which the Appellant failed perform the contract is explicitly17 wrong in law implementation18.
3、鉴于一审法院孤立执法（只处置2000年合同）的状况，则上诉人在2000年度将来已经给付的租金就不止贰万元。
III. Given the isolated19 law execution by the first-instance court （i.e. it only considered the contract of 2000）, the Appellant has paid more than RMB20,000 in rental following 2000.
4、即使根据在一审法院只处置2000年合同的情形下，对有关装修不予补偿，亦不公平。
IV. Even under the circumstance of only handling the contract of 2000 by the first-instance court, no compensation has been given to decoration, which is unfair either.
综上所述，上诉人觉得，上诉人与被上诉人之间共存在三份合同。被上诉人和一审法院对该三份合同在明知和已经查明的状况下，却有意割裂当事人之间的完整民事法律关系。从而导致一审判决存在片面、孤立执法（如只处置2000年合同），加重当事人的讼累。与一审判决存在执法尺度、执法理念的不统1、不协调（如对13平方米未追究违约责任）。还有一审判决存在越权司法、违法裁量（如处置2001年房租）的等等问题。为此，上诉人恳请二审法院，能在基于依法查明本案全部事实的基础上，均衡执法，做出公正的裁判！
In view of the foregoing, the Appellant maintains that there have existed three contracts between the Appellant and the Appellee. The Appellee and the first-instance court has intentionally20 isolated the complete set of civil juristic relationships between the parties, thereby21 leading to one-sided judgment in the first instance and adding burden to the parties' litigation efforts. Meanwhile, the criteria22 for law-enforcement were unbalanced and unharmonious in the first instance, coupled with other problems including entitled law application and illegal ruling. Therefore, the Appellant requests second-instance court to make a fair judgment on the basis of ascertaining23 all facts of this case.
此致
北京铁路运输中级法院
To：
Beijing Railway Transportation Intermediate Court
上诉人：[ ]贸易公司
The Appellant： [ ] Trade Co., Ltd
二00 年 月 日
Date：
附：本上诉状副本二份
Attachment： two copies of the appeal
