上訴狀格式中英對照

時間：2022-10-26 06:34:30 上訴狀我要投稿

相關(guān)推薦

上訴狀格式中英對照

　　引導(dǎo)語：上訴狀，是民事、行政或刑事案件的當(dāng)事人對地方各級人民法院作出的第一審民事、行政或刑事判決或裁定不服，按照法定的程序和期限，向上一級人民法院提起上訴時使用的文書。今天，小編為大家整理了關(guān)于上訴狀格式中英對照，歡迎閱讀與參考!

上訴狀格式中英對照

　　APPEAL

　　上訴人(一審被告)[ ]貿(mào)易有限公司，住所地[ ].

　　法定代表人：蘇xx，公司經(jīng)理。

　　The Appellant (The defendant in the first instance)

　　被上訴人(一審原告)[ ]工程總公司第一工程公司，住所地[ ].

　　法定代表人：柴xx，公司經(jīng)理。

　　The Appellee (The plaintiff in the first instance)

　　上訴人因租賃合同一案，不服太原鐵路運(yùn)輸法院(2001)太鐵經(jīng)初字第6號《民事判決書》，現(xiàn)依法提起上訴。

　　The Appellant declines to accept the Civil Judgment 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.

　　上訴請求：

　　APPEAL

　　1.撤銷太原鐵路運(yùn)輸法院(2001)太鐵經(jīng)初字第6號《民事判決書》。

　　2.依法認(rèn)定、改判1998年5月14日上訴人與被上訴人簽訂的房屋租賃合同有效。

　　3.被上訴人承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任，并履行98年合同義務(wù)后，同意解除合同。

　　上訴事實和理由：

　　APPELATE FACTS AND REASONS：

　　首先，上訴人對本案的基本和主導(dǎo)觀點(diǎn)：

　　Firstly， the Appellant's basic and leading opinions about the case follow：

　　上訴人認(rèn)為，根據(jù)《合同法》倡導(dǎo)的當(dāng)事人意思高度自治和契約自由的理念，以及目前司法實踐中的主流執(zhí)法觀念，上訴人與被上訴人之間共存在三份合同，均應(yīng)認(rèn)定為有效合同。該三份合同的主體、標(biāo)的物、價款基本一致。

　　The Appellant maintains that in accordance with the mentalities of highly autonomous expression of intentions and contract freedom called for in the Contract Law， as well as the mainstream law-enforcing mentalities in judicial practice at present， there exist three contracts between the Appellant and the Appellee， which shall be deemed to be valid. The subjects， matters and considerations involved in the three contracts are basically identical.

　　一、一審法院認(rèn)定1998年5月14日上訴人與被上訴人簽訂的房屋租賃合同為無效合同，與法無據(jù)。

　　I. The first-instance court ascertained that the house lease contract executed between the Appellant and the Appellee on May 14， 1998 was invalid. This ruling is not law-based.

　　二、法院以被上訴人已履行了合同大部分義務(wù)，上訴人在雙方訂立合同時已在使用租賃房屋為由認(rèn)定上訴人先履行抗辯權(quán)不能成立，這明顯違反了《合同法》有關(guān)先履行抗辯權(quán)的規(guī)定。

　　II. The court ascertained that the Appellant's exercise of the right to avoid performing the contract as a defense against the Appellee's breach 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 violation of the provision of the Contract Law in respect of the defensive refusal to perform the contract.

　　其次，上訴人基于并不完全認(rèn)可的一審法院判決的幾點(diǎn)抗辯觀點(diǎn)：

　　Secondly， the following are some defensive opinions of the Appellant based on the first-instance judgment which cannot be fully accepted.

　　一、一審法院以2001年后，上訴人與被上訴人之間存在事實租賃關(guān)系為由，判決上訴人比照2000年合同的租金標(biāo)準(zhǔn)承擔(dān)租金，與法無據(jù)。

　　I. The ruling of the first-instance court ordering the Appellant to pay the rental 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.

　　二、一審法院對被上訴人未履約的13平米問題的判決，存在明顯的執(zhí)法錯誤。

　　II. The first-instance judgment on the 13 square meters in respect of which the Appellant failed perform the contract is explicitly wrong in law implementation.

　　三、鑒于一審法院孤立執(zhí)法(只處理2000年合同)的情況，則上訴人在2000年度以后已經(jīng)給付的租金就不止貳萬元。

　　III. Given the isolated 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.

　　四、即便按照在一審法院只處理2000年合同的情形下，對有關(guān)裝潢不予補(bǔ)償，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.

　　綜上所述，上訴人認(rèn)為，上訴人與被上訴人之間共存在三份合同。被上訴人和一審法院對該三份合同在明知和已經(jīng)查明的情況下，卻有意割裂當(dāng)事人之間的完整民事法律關(guān)系。從而造成一審判決存在片面、孤立執(zhí)法(如只處理2000年合同)，加重當(dāng)事人的訟累。以及一審判決存在執(zhí)法尺度、執(zhí)法理念的不統(tǒng)一、不協(xié)調(diào)(如對13平米未追究違約責(zé)任)還有一審判決存在越權(quán)司法、違法裁量(如處理2001年房租)的等等問題。為此，上訴人懇請二審法院，能在基于依法查明本案全部事實的基礎(chǔ)上，均衡執(zhí)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 intentionally isolated the complete set of civil juristic relationships between the parties， thereby leading to one-sided judgment in the first instance and adding burden to the parties' litigation efforts. Meanwhile， the criteria 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 ascertaining all facts of this case.

　　此致

北京鐵路運(yùn)輸中級法院

　　To：

Beijing Railway Transportation Intermediate Court

　　上訴人：[ ]貿(mào)易有限公司

　　The Appellant： [ ] Trade Co.， Ltd

　　二00 年月日

　　Date：

　　附：本上訴狀副本二份

　　Attachment： two copies of the appeal

【上訴狀格式中英對照】相關(guān)文章：

上訴狀格式10-09