Bachelor of Business Administration, Guangdong Ocean University

1. Plaintiff Kaiping City Co., Ltd. v. Defendant 1 Guangzhou City Industrial Co., Ltd., Defendant 2 Guangzhou City Investment Co., Ltd. and Third Party Guangdong High-speed Railway Equipment Co., Ltd. in a contract dispute case, the plaintiff demanded Defendant 1 to pay about RMB 51.37 million yuan in damages.

The result of the lawsuit: we represented defendant one in the first instance lawsuit and won all the cases. After the first trial, the plaintiff was urged to withdraw the lawsuit voluntarily. We have avoided more than 5137 million yuan in damages for the client.

2. In the case of the plaintiff's industrial limited company v. the defendant's Guangdong limited company over a dispute over a lease contract, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay about 10.37 million yuan in rent, site occupation fee and related interest.

Litigation Outcome: We represented the plaintiff in the first-instance litigation and ultimately secured a full victory at that stage, with the court substantially granting all of our claims.

3. In the case of a dispute over a construction contract between a construction (group) co., ltd. of Guangdong province and a bureau group construction co., ltd. of the defendant, the plaintiff required the defendant to pay the project fund, performance bond and related interest of about RMB 7.88 million yuan.

The result of the lawsuit: we represented the defendant in the first and second instance lawsuits and finally won a large proportion of the 1. in the second instance. in the end, the defendant only had to pay the project fund and the performance bond of about RMB 920000 yuan. We reduced the compensation amount for the project payment owed to our client by approximately RMB 6.96 million.

4. In the case of a dispute over a house lease contract between a food co., ltd. in Guangzhou and a Shenzhen industrial co., ltd. in Shenzhen, a second Wang, a third in Guangzhou and a third in Guangzhou, a commercial city co., ltd., the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the site occupation fee, related interest and other liquidated damages of about ￥9 million yuan from October 1, 2022 to December 31, 2023.

Litigation Outcome: We represented Defendants One and Two in the first-instance proceedings and ultimately secured a partial victory at that stage, with Defendant One being ordered to pay only approximately RMB 4 million in site occupation fees and other expenses. We reduced the client’s costs by approximately RMB 5 million.

5. In the case of an administrative dispute between the appellant Hangzhou Science and Technology Co., Ltd. and the appellee Education Science and Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. over the non-registration of trademarks, the appellant requested the cancellation of the Administrative Judgment No. 13975 of Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2021) Beijing 73 Line Chu.

Litigation Outcome: Our client, the appellee, prevailed in the second-instance litigation and ultimately obtained a full victory. The second-instance court dismissed all of the appellant’s claims and upheld the original judgment.

6. The retrial applicants Lin Mou, Chen Mou Cheng, Chen Mou Yu, Chen Mou and Xiong Mou are in dispute with the respondent over the right to life, body and health with a project management center in a district of Guangzhou, a design and Research Institute Co., Ltd. in Guangzhou, a group Co., Ltd. in Guangdong Province, a supervision Co., Ltd. in Guangzhou, a bureau in a district of Guangzhou, and a management bureau in a district of Guangzhou, the fifth retrial applicant requested the seventh respondent to pay joint and several compensation of about RMB 2.89 million yuan.

Litigation Outcome: Our client, the appellee, prevailed in the second-instance litigation and ultimately obtained a full victory. The second-instance court dismissed all of the appellant’s claims and upheld the original judgment.

7. In the case of a dispute over a sales contract between a limited company in Taizhou city and a limited company in Guangzhou and an international limited company, the plaintiff demanded that the two defendants pay about RMB 1.01 million yuan for the outstanding payment in 2018.

Results of the lawsuit: We acted for Defendant 2 in the first instance and finally won all the cases in the first instance. All the plaintiff's claims were rejected. We avoided compensation of about RMB 1.01 million yuan for the client.

8. The plaintiff Taizhou Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Defendant One (Guangdong) Health Industry Co., Ltd., Defendant Two Hong Kong Co., Ltd., and Third Party Guangdong Technology Co., Ltd. in a dispute over damage to the company's interests. The plaintiff requested to confirm that the Plant Lease Agreement signed by Defendant One and the Third Party with a value of RMB 2997810 is invalid.

Litigation Outcome: We represented Defendant 1 in the first-instance proceedings and ultimately secured a complete victory, with all of the plaintiff’s claims dismissed.