What is the accounting treatment of Qingdao Lisan Company? What is the working environment like? Come to our school to recruit. I don't know much about this company and hope to work there.

Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province

paper of civil judgment

(202 1) No.8525, Lu 02 Minzhong

Appellant: Qingdao Lisan Group Co., Ltd.. Unified social credit code: 9 137020072782932X0.

Legal Representative: Zhang Qinghua, general manager.

Authorized Agent: Cui Shanshan, lawyer of Shandong Zhongyuan Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Ji Bin, lawyer of Beijing Zhonglun Wende (Qingdao) Law Firm.

Appellant (defendant in the first instance): Ji Shuxiang.

Authorized Agent: Sun Xike, lawyer of Shandong Chunshui Law Firm.

In the case of contract dispute between the appellant Qingdao Lisan Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lisan Group) and the appellant Ji Shuxiang, both parties refused to accept the civil judgment (2020)No. Lu 02 14 Minchu 4522 of Chengyang District People's Court of Qingdao, Shandong Province, and appealed to our court. On July 5, 20021year, our hospital formed a collegial panel to hear the case according to law. The case has now been closed.

Li San Group's appeal request: 1. Cancel the judgment of first instance; 2. Ji Shuxiang compensated Li San Group for the depreciation of the senior management apartment1733,523 yuan; 3. Ji Shuxiang compensated Li San Group for material losses of 22,780 yuan; 4. Ji Shu paid Li San Group a judicial appraisal fee of 48,000 yuan; 5. Ji Shuxiang was ordered to bear the litigation costs of the first and second trials of this case. Facts and reasons: 1. The housing contract between Li San Group and Ji Shuxiang is legally established, valid and legally binding on both parties. If Ji Shuxiang breaches the contract, she shall bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract. As an auditor, Ji Shuxiang signed the "Qingdao Lisan Group House Sales Contract", which is enough to prove that she is fully aware of all the contents and purposes of the contract. At the same time, Ji Shuxiang has paid the house deposit and actually moved in and used the house involved. According to the relevant provisions of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the housing contract of both parties is legally established and valid. The above facts were also recognized in the effective civil judgment of (2020) Lu 02 No.3992 made by Qingdao Intermediate People's Court. A legally established contract is binding on both parties. Due to Ji Shuxiang's breach of contract, according to the contract, she should pay the depreciation fee to Li San Group. The calculation standard and method of depreciation expenses are clearly stipulated in the housing contract, which does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and there is no situation in which the contract is invalid as stipulated by law. Both parties know and recognize it. Therefore, Ji Shu paid the depreciation expense to Li San Group according to the contract. 2. According to the interpretation of the court of first instance, Li San Group applied for judicial appraisal of the amount of depreciation loss of the house involved. However, the appraisal conclusion is obviously too low, which is seriously inconsistent with the actual loss of Li San Group, and the appraisal conclusion should not be used as the basis for finalization. As mentioned above, the calculation standard of depreciation loss compensation agreed in the contract does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and both parties shall abide by it. According to the contract, Ji Shu compensated Li San Group for depreciation expense of 2,756,303 yuan. However, Li San Group only made a claim of 65,438 yuan+0,733,523 yuan in the first instance. Li San Group believes that the amount of the claim is more in line with the loss stipulated in Article 114 of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law and should be supported according to law. On the other hand, the appraisal conclusion did not fully consider the actual situation of the house involved. The house involved is a five-star high-end apartment, which is completely decorated according to the standards of five-star hotels. However, the appraisal conclusion is based on ordinary decoration standards, and the depreciation loss of concealed works in the decoration of the houses involved is not evaluated. To sum up, the evaluation conclusion should not be used as the basis for determining the loss of Li San Group. 3. Li San Group has no breach of contract and no fault. Even if the losses are further expanded, the corresponding responsibilities should not be borne by Li San Group. The court of first instance held that it was wrong for Li San Group to have reasonable time to know about Ji Shuxiang's resignation and move out of the executive apartment involved, and to take appropriate measures to take back the executive apartment involved in order to avoid greater losses. First of all, Ji Shuxiang moved out of the house without going through the handover procedures, and Li San Group did not know about it at that time. Secondly, although Li San Group later learned that Ji Shuxiang had left, Li San Group was not sure whether Ji Shuxiang and his living relatives had completely moved out and whether they would return to the house involved again. Thirdly, due to Ji Shuxiang's self-removal, the two sides have disputes and disputes over related losses and responsibilities. Based on the above reasons, in line with the principle of respecting the privacy of Ji Shuxiang and his roommates, Li San Group cannot take so-called "appropriate measures" to recover the house on the premise that the dispute between the two parties has not been resolved and Li San Group has not gone through the house handover procedures. At the same time, after Ji Shuxiang moved out of the house without authorization, Li San Group never entered the house involved when it went to the appraisal agency in this case for on-site investigation. Li San Group believes that there is no further expansion of participation in housing losses. To take a step back, even if there is a problem of further expansion of losses, Ji Shuxiang should bear the responsibility. Because Li San Group is not at fault, the appraisal fee of 48,000 yuan paid by Li San Group shall be borne by Ji Shuxiang. 4. During his residence in this house, Ji Shuxiang damaged or lost some articles, causing material losses of 22,780 yuan to the plaintiff, and should be liable for compensation. The housing contract between the two parties clearly stipulates that Ji Shuxiang has the right to use the house and supporting furniture after completing the check-in formalities. During Ji Shuxiang's stay, Li San Group has prepared relevant items and materials for him. Ji Shu doesn't own the related articles and materials in the house, so Ji Shu uses the materials in the house carefully. During Ji Shuxiang's stay, some items were damaged or lost due to improper use. To this end, Li San Group once again purchased this part of the materials for Ji Shuxiang. The name, specifications and unit price of these materials are clearly recorded in Annex II of Qingdao Lisan Group Housing Contract, Configuration List of Movable Furniture and Household Articles in Executive Apartment (Standard), which is recognized by both parties. Therefore, the material loss of 22,780 yuan should be compensated by Ji Shuxiang.

Ji Shu sent a written opinion after the trial saying: 1. In the second trial, the settlement audit report submitted by Li San Group was not recognized. Ji Shuxiang didn't sign a contract with Li San Group at all.