Plaintiff: Chenco International Inc.
Address: 106 North Merdian Puyallup, Washington 98371 U.S.A.
Legal Representative: Chen Shoureng, president
Authorized Attorney: Xu Juanfang, attorney-at-law of Siwei Law Firm, Shanghai
Defendant: Shanghai branch company, China Pacific Insurance (group) Co., Ltd.
Address: Fuzhou Road No. 507, Shanghai
Responsible Person: Zhu Qing, general manager
Authorized Attorneys: Wang Huanjiang, Yin Dongnian, attorneys-at-law of Haixiang Law Firm, Shanghai


　　　 This Court, after filing the case of dispute over shipping insurance contract Chenco International Inc. (plaintiff) v. the Shanghai branch company of China Pacific Insurance (group) Co., Ltd. (defendant), has duly organized a collegial panel and held public trials on April 10, April 20 and June 26 respectively. Chen Shoureng, the legal representative of the plaintiff Chenco International Inc. and Xu Juanfang, the authorized attorney of the plaintiff Chenco International Inc., Wang Haijiang, the authorized attorney of the defendant of the Shanghai branch company of China Pacific Insurance (group) Co., Ltd. (the defendant), appeared at the trials for argument and the hearing of the case. Yin Dongnian, the other authorized attorney of the defendant the Shanghai branch company of China Pacific Insurance (group) Co., Ltd. (the defendant) appeared at the first trial. The case has now come to a close. 　　　The plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff and the defendant concluded the voyage insurance contract of towage on February 27, 1995. The insurance policy indicated that the insured was the plaintiff and the insured ship was "M/V CANADIAN HARVEST". According to the information of insured ship submitted by the plaintiff, the amount of insurable value is $1,249,600; the rate of premium is 2.1%; the amount of premium is $26,241.60; the range of navigation, namely the duration of insurance liability, is from Montreal, Canada, by Hope Cape, to China; the insurance period/voyage, starts from April 20, 1995 (without indicating the date of termination); the insurance condition applied to the ship insurance clause enacted by the People's Insurance Company of China on January 1, 1986, though the defendant did not offer or tell the above insurance clause to the plaintiff. It was indicated in the column of comment that: (1) the towed ship shall have the certificate which proves it is fit for being towed; (2) the premium shall be paid off before April 20, 1995, otherwise the insurance policy is lapsed. The insurance policy shall become effective automatically, for the plaintiff had paid off the premium in accordance with the contract. On May 16, 1995, Claude Lemay, the checker of maritime affairs, issued the certificate that proved "M/V CANADA HARVEST" was fit for being towed by "M/V Neftegaz-16" from Montreal to China. The ship sailed on May 29. On June 5, there was some trouble with the chief engine of the tugboat, and the ship sailed back to Morgrafe Harbor in Canada for repair. The plaintiff reported the above situation to the defendant by relevant people. After being repaired, Claude Lemay, the checker of maritime affairs, issued the certificate on October 10. The ship sailed again on December 1, and met with hurricane on the outer sea area of Canada. "M/V CANADA HARVEST" was broke off and its stern floated away, and only its fore towed by the tugboat left. It was decided to give up the towed fore in respect that the fore made against the safety of navigation. "M/V CANADA HARVEST" was damaged whole. The marine posse of Harrimays Center released the navigation announcement for this marine accident.
　　　 The plaintiff alleged: the duration of liability for the voyage insurance begins at the moment of loosing hawser and heaving anchor at the port of start and ended at the moment of casting anchor or tying hawser. The insurer shall compensate as long as the ship suffers damage due to the marine accident among the range of voyage navigation. But the defendant shuffled and delayed for paying compensation with excuses. Therefore, the plaintiff asks to enjoin the defendant to pay damage in the amount of $1,49,600 for the total loss of and the loss of interest due to the delayed payment, and pay all costs of the action.
　　　 On the hearing, the plaintiff put forward that the loss of interest shall be calculated according to the bank lending rate of US$ for domestic enterprise in the same term. On the hearing, the authorized attorney of the plaintiff emphasized the duration of liability for insurance shall begin at the moment of loosing hawser and heaving anchor at Montreal and end at the moment of casting anchor or tying hawser at the harbor of China in the statement of procurator again. The sentence "STARTING ON 20TH APRIL, 1995" on the insurance policy indicates the insurance period starts from April 20, 1995,instead of the time of starting to tow the insured ship. The defendant has never informed to cancel the insurance policy involved in this case. Hence, the insurance policy shall be effective though the plaintiff delayed to pay. It is lacking factually for the defendant to cite Clause 3 of Article 6 of the ship insurance clause. On the grounds that defendant knew the hulks like "M/V CANADA HARVEST" for which the plaintiff bought the insurance were used for pulling down and charged high rate of premium as 2.1%, it is lacking factually for the defendant to cite Article 4 of the ship insurance clause. The plaintiff is the qualified subject for claiming for compensation because the plaintiff holds the ownership to the insured ship and the right of management and the insurable interests even if before the acquisition of ownership. As far as the loss of interest, the plaintiff asks to count from December 26, 1995, to the date of judgement on the annual rate as 8%.
　　　 The defendant did not submit its written answer within the period prescribed by law. On the hearing, the defendant alleges the reason for refusing the payment of compensation according to the fact prescribed by law about the situation of the insured ship and the cause of accident. Furthermore, the authorized attorney of the defendant put forward in the statement of procurator that the parties did not agree upon the application of law in the insurance contract. Hence, this case shall apply to the prescription of Maritime Law of China. The defendant holds the right to cancel the insurance contract and bears no liability for contract because the plaintiff, being the insured, did not tell the important condition of the subject of insurance that the insured ship was a laker instead of a ship and the purpose of navigation was to pull down the insured ship before concluding the contract or at that moment. The liability of the defendant for insurance had been terminated or ineffective automatically since the day of the plaintiff infringing the contract because the plaintiff delayed the start time of towage and violated the special stipulation and suretyship in the insurance policy. The insurance contract became ineffective due to the lack of valid certificate for being fit for towage to the plaintiff as the insured. The insurance contract was terminated automatically because it was revealed in the relevant evidence that the port of destination for the insured ship was Alang in India, which violated the insurance. The defendant shall not bear the liability foe compensation because the plaintiff failed to prove that the ship damage was resulted from which was among the insurance risks listed in the insurance policy. The plaintiff is unqualified for bringing an action under the insurance policy as a result that it failed to prove its insurance interests.
　　　 In order to support its claims, the plaintiff submits following evidence: 1.Ship insurance policy filed as PSH001HI95/2545-001; 2.Notice of premium; 3.Contract of towage; 4.Contract on ship sales and purchases; 5.Certificate for being fir for towage issued by Claude Lemay on May 16, 1995; 6.Ship insurance policy filed as PSH001HI95/2545-002; 7.Log of tugboat; 8.Letter written by Zhang Wei to Liu Jiguo; 9.Record written down by the authorized attorney while investigating Zhang Wei; 10. Testimony made by Liu Jiguo; 11.Certificate for being fir for towage issued by Claude Lemay on October 10, 1995; 12.Certification from Claude Lemay; 13.Affidavit from Bruce Jones working for MCA; 14.Certification from Canadian marine posse; 15.Report on maritime affairs from "M/V Neftegaz-16"; 16.Urgent report on shipwreck accident from LLOYD'S; 17.Report by MCA from the plaintiff; 18.Reprot from the captain of "M/V Neftegaz-16" to Canadian Marine Posse; 19.Announcement from Canadian Marine Posse; 20.Documents from the Committee on Transportation Safety of Canada; 21.Fax documents from London Marine Salvage Association; 22.Certificate issued by MCA; 23.Contract on sales and purchases for the relevant ships from Chenco Maritime Affairs Inc.; 24.Bill of sale and certification from Ministry of Communication, Canada; 25.Certification from American Colombia Bank; 26.Documents in which the relevant ships were transferred from Chenco Maritime Affairs Inc. to the plaintiff; 27.Legal bill of sale.
　　　 Among the above evidences, the evidences of No. 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 have been notarized and authenticated. The defendant has no demur for the formally essential elements after cross-examination. The defendant denies the evidence of No. 21 according to the content in the fax from British Sedgwick Investigation Company, though the time of this fax brought into being is earlier than the evidence of No. 21 and the fax has not been notarized or authenticated. The defendant does not submit any opposite evidence though doubting the authenticity. To the evidences of No. 8, 9, 10, the defendant refuses to accept; and to No. 1, 2, 6, without any demur.
　　　 In order to support its claims, the defendant submits following evidences to the court: 1. Relevant ship insurance policy, relevant proposal policy, ship insurance clause enacted by the People's Insurance Company of China on January 1, 1986, policy of entering premium in an account, notice of withdrawing fee to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no demur to the authenticity of above evidences. 2. Haven log from MCA, documents from Ship Registration Bureau of Russia, damage record on the chief engine of the "M/V Neftegaz-16", examination report, documents to the plaintiff from MCA. The plaintiff has no demur to the authenticity of above evidences. 3. Examination and annex issued by British Brookes, Bell & Co.. The plaintiff brings forward that there is no evidential validity on the evidence without notarization and authentication. 4. Fax from British Sedgwick Investigation Company, contract of towage, contract on ship sales and purchases (namely the evidences No.3, 4 submitted by the plaintiff). The plaintiff denies the authentication of the fax from British Sedgwick Investigation Company when cross-examination. 5. Report on the comparison between the climate in Northern Pacific District and in Great Lake District issued by Robert L. Cohen, an aerologist and registered consultant of American Climate News Ltd., record on climate in the place when accident occurred. The plaintiff brings forward that there is no evidential validity on the evidence without notarization and authentication. 6. Six faxes to the plaintiff from the defendant and four faxes to the defendant from the plaintiff, report on the settlement of this case to its head office from the defendant. The plaintiff has no demur to the authenticity of above evidences. 7. Two faxes to Lawrence E. Nelson, P.S. from the defendant, fax to the defendant from the plaintiff, documents to Zhang Wei sent by Liu Jiguo. The plaintiff has no demur to the authenticity of above evidences. Moreover, the defendant also submits a piece of fax document from J. B. Waite, the chief navigation engineer of British Marine Salvage Association. The plaintiff brings forward that there is no evidential validity on the evidence without notarization and authentication. The defendant also asks the court to summon its clerk Zhu Weiguo for testifying the relevant fact on the procedure of proposal. Zhu Weiguo appears on the court and answers the question of both and accepts the plaintiff's cross-examination.
　　　 This court holds, pursuant to Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, that those evidences submitted by one party shall be affirmed, including which the opposite party does not demur, or has no enough evidence to repudiate though demurring, or in the same. Those evidence obtained from foreigner or foreign organization shall be notarized or authenticated unless the opposite party accepts. The testimony shall be testified by the witness on the court unless the opposite party accepts. This court hereby finds that the plaintiff's evidences of No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 are in effect according to the law. It shall be corrected in the translated version as the plaintiff's evidence of No. 15, for the relevantly insured ship is a laker. The evidential validity of the evidences of No. 8, 9, and 10 as the testimony cannot be accepted by this court, for the witness did not attend the hearing for being cross-examined by the defendant. The haven log which revealed that the port of destination for the insured ship was Alang in India among the second group evidences of the defendant is denied and can not be the basis for deciding on a verdict because of the acceptance to the plaintiff's evidence of No. 22. There is no evidential validity on those evidences among the third, fifth and fourth groups because of not being notarized or authenticated, including the fax from British Sedgwick Investigation Company and the fax from J. B. Waite, the chief navigation engineer of British Marine Salvage Association. Other evidences submitted by the defendant shall be found according to the law.
　　　 The facts are found according to the above effective evidences: On February 27, 1995, the defendant concluded two pieces of insurance policy filed as PSH001HI95/2545-001 and PSH001HI95/2545-002 requested by the plaintiff who put forward to buy insurance. It was indicated on the insurance policy filed as PSH001HI95/2545-001 that: the plaintiff is the insured; the insured ship is "M/V CANADIAN HARVEST"; the ship carries bulk cargo; the total tonnage is 7810 tons; the ship is built in 1965; Canada is the place of shipbuilding and of registration; the nationality of the ship and its flag is Canadian; the insurable value and sum is $1,249,600; the premium is $26,241.60 with the rate as 2.1%; the insurable condition is total loss and the salvage applies to the ship insurance clause enacted by the People's Insurance Company of China on January 1, 1986; the range of navigation is from Montreal in Canada, by Hope Cape , to China; the insurance period/voyage starts on 20th April, 1995; the amount of franchise is %5,000. It is written in the column of comment that "the insurance policy is ineffective unless the insured holds the certificate for being fit for towage issued by qualified checker; the insurer is entitled to cancel the insurance policy when the insured fails to pay the premium on April 20, 1995, at latest. The content on the other insurance policy is almost same with the above one except the information of ship. However, on the comment policy of the second insurance policy issued by the defendant on April 19, the insurance period had been altered to start on April 30, 1995, and to end at the moment of arriving China. The defendant accepted the premium paid by the plaintiff on June 3.
　　　 The relevant ship, for which the plaintiff bought insurance, was purchased from Canadian Upper Lakes Navigation Company by Chenco Maritime Inc. with the price of $921,900 on February 16, 1995, and was transferred to the plaintiff. On April 6, 1995, the plaintiff concluded the contract on sales and purchases with Changzhou Yisheng Pull-down Ship Ltd. for selling the two ships to the latter, with the unit price of $160 per long ton delivering in China, and the agreed time of delivery was during July or August in the same year. On March 22, 1995, the plaintiff concluded the international ship voyage contract filed as "TOWCON" with Panama MoA Navigation Ltd and agreed upon that the two relevant ships were towed by "M/V Ahis Neftegaz-16" from Canada to a safe harbor in the northern China. The earliest start date was planned from April 26 to May 2, 1995. On May 16, 1995, Claude Lemay, the checker of maritime affairs working for Canadian Grobecks Maritime Affairs Company, issued the certificate, which proved the two relevant ships were fit for being towed. On the certificate, it was written "the checker examined on invitation and affirmed that the two ships are fit for being towed by "M/V Neftegaz-16" from Montreal to China. The advice has been given to the captain of tugboat about the above navigation. It is qualified in all respects to start
　　　 on May 16, 1995." At 23:30 on April 24, the relevant tugboat arrived at Montreal and started to leave there towing the relevant ships at 12:30 on May 30, after a series of preparation. On June 5, the screw propeller of "M/V Neftegaz-16" twisted, and the engine on larboard could not be controlled while the engine of starboard stopped to work. On June 14, "M/V Neftegaz-16" was berthed at a harbor in Russia and was moved to another harbor for reparation on October. The Ship Registration Bureau of Russia had examined the damage of tugboat before being moved. On October 10, 1995, Claude Lemay, the checker of maritime affairs working for Canadian Grobecks Maritime Affairs Company, issued the certificate, which proved the two relevant ships were fit for being towed again, in which it was written that "have been fit for being towed
　　　 on October 10, 1995". On December 1, "M/V Neftegaz-16" started to tow again. At 6:24 in Canadian time zone on December 3, the chief mate of the tugboat found the stern of "M/V Canadian Harvest" broke away by radar while it was at the spot 44°25′8″N、57°09′3″W. The weather information at that moment were: the wind direction 320°, the wind speed 20-25m/s, the wave direction 315°, the wave height 6-7 meters, the visibility 5 sea miles. The data at 20:00
　　　 on December 4 were: the wind speed 22m/s, the wind direction 195°, the wave height 5 meters. The data at 00:00 on December 5 were: the wind speed about 30m/s, the wave height 8 meters. At 04:48 on the same day, at the spot 42°30′6″N、53°45′9″W, the hawser for towage on "M/V Canadian Harvest" was loosed from the tugboat for the safety of the tugboat and "M/V Canadian Explorer", and then the residual part of "M/V Canadian Harvest" sank. Canadian Maritime Posse released the navigation announcement according to the report from the captain of tugboat as soon as the accident happened. British LLOYD'S also released the urgent report on this maritime accident. On December 4, 1995, the plaintiff faxed to the defendant for informing the accident about the insured ship. Until December 28, the two parties had negotiated about the payment of compensation for many times by fax. During that period, the plaintiff claimed in the fax on December 28 that: "the planned date for start is April 20, 1995", " started on May 29 in fact because of various reasons"; the defendant claimed in the fax on December 26 that the relevant insurance contract had been ineffective automatically due to the delayed start of the insured ship.
　　　 The former name of "M/V Canadian Harvest" was "Rimouski". "M/V Canadian Harvest", together with "M/V Canadian Explorer", are both lakers sailing in the Great Lake District, inner rivers and St. Laurance Water Way in Canada. There is no effective evidence to prove that the plaintiff had informed the defendant the start time of the two relevant ships and the fact that the tugboat was repaired in large-scale before the accident, or that the plaintiff had informed the defendant the purpose of navigation, i.e. pulling down the relevant insured ship, and the fact that the insured ship was a laker before concluding the contract.
　　　 The ship insurance clause enacted by the People's Insurance Company of China on January 1, 1986, is printed on the back the relevant insurance policy. It is indicated in Article 4 "Shipping" that: "Unless being agreed by the insurer in advance and accepting the added premium due to the alteration to insurable condition, this insurance is not liable for the damage and liability because of following situation: (I) the insured ship is engaged with towage or salvage; (II) (omitted); (III) the insured ship sails under the purpose of pulling down or being sold for pulling down". It is indicated in Article 6 "Insurance Termination" that: "On condition that it is against the special clause prescribed on insurance policy on cargo, voyage, range of navigation, towage, salvage or start date, the insured shall inform the insurer at once and accept the added premium due to the alteration to insurable condition as soon as receiving the information, and this insurance shall be effective continuously. Otherwise, this insurance shall be terminated automatically." It is indicated in Article 5 "Insurance Period" that: "(III) voyage insurance: it is counted according to the voyage written on the insurance policy. The time of start and end shall be fixed according to following rules: 1.ship without cargo, from the moment of loosing hawser and heaving anchor at the port of start to the moment of casting anchor and tying hawser at the port of destination. 2.ship with cargo, from the moment of loading cargo at the port of start to the moment of unloading at the port of destination, but the period is no more that 30 days since the midnight of the day arriving at the port of destination." 　　　This court holds that this case involving foreign elements because the parties are the corporation in different countries. In accordance with the law, unless being prescribed in addition, the party to the contract involving foreign elements is permitted to choose the application law to the contract; if the party does not choose, it shall apply to the law of the country with proximate connection. After investigation, the relevant contract is not found the clause on application law, and the application law to the contract involving foreign elements is not prescribed in relevant law specially. On the grounds that the contract involving foreign elements was concluded in Shanghai and the agreed port of destination to towage was the harbor in China, therefore, it shall be determined that the law of the People's Republic of China is one of the law of the country with proximate connection. The dispute in this case shall apply to Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as Maritime Law) and other relevant laws and regulations. The plaintiff bought insurance for the relevant ship in order to fulfill the contract on ship sales and purchases with Changzhou Yisheng Pulling-down Ship Ltd., and the defendant agreed and issued the ship insurance policy. Hence, the marine insurance contract on ship is effective pursuant to law. The parties to the contract shall fulfill the obligation and exercise the right in accordance with law and contract. The fact that the insured ship is used for pulling down has been investigated clearly and affirmed by the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff had informed the fact to the defendant before concluding the contract. It is prescribed in Clause 1 of Article 222 of Maritime Law: "Before the contract is concluded, the insured shall truthfully inform the insurer of the important circumstances which the insured has knowledge of or ought to have knowledge of in his ordinary business practice and which may have a bearing on the insurer in deciding the premium or whether agrees to insure or not." The risk of the insurable subject is an important factor to affect the insurer in deciding the premium or whether agrees to insure or not. Compared with the general ship, there is much more perils of the sea on the ship for being pull down. Thus, the insurer would bring forward additional condition including to add premium if knowing this fact. It is also indicated clearly in Article 4 of the relevant insurance clause that the insurer is not liable for the damage and liability unless being agreed by the insurer in advance and accepting the added premium due to the alteration to insurable condition. Therefore, any circumstances to add the risk shall be regarded as the important circumstances, though it is not prescribed in Maritime Law. It is the important circumstance that the relevant ship is used for pulling down. It violates both the stipulation in the insurance clause and the prescription of the law for the plaintiff not to inform this fact to the defendant before the conclusion the contract. As a result, no matter whether the plaintiff did not inform deliberately, the defendant is entitled to cancel the contract without bearing the liability for insurance compensation in accordance with Article 223 of Maritime Law. There is no evidence for supporting the plaintiff's claim that the defendant knew the hulks for which the plaintiff bought the insurance were used for pulling down and charged high rate of premium as 2.1%.
　　　 This court also holds that it is the assurance clause to sail within reasonable period. The insurer is entitled to cancel the contract or to request the alteration the insurable condition for adding the premium according to law if the insured violates the clause. The insured should inform the insurer as soon as it violates the clause. The insurer's right shall not be influenced even if the insured does not inform. Both the parties agree that it is an international ship voyage insurance contract in this case. Since the relevant ship loads no cargo, the term of liability for the voyage insurance to the ship without cargo is from the moment of loosing hawser and heaving anchor at the port of start to the moment of casting anchor and tying hawser at the port of destination according to Article 5 of the relevant insurance clause. Therefore, the meaning that the insurance period/voyage of the relevant insurance policy begins from April 20, 1995, indicates neither the relevant ship must be towed on that day nor it accords with the stipulation in the contract that the relevant ship is towed at any time after that day. According to the specialty to ship voyage insurance and the convention of insurance trade, its reasonable explanation is that the insured ship shall be towed on that day within the reasonable period or after that day. It would beget unpredictable insurance risk under the circumstance of the conclusion of contract in the scheduled to be towed after that reasonable period and change the basis of contract substantially. Thus, it is the assurance clause to sail within reasonable period. According to the stipulation in the relevant insurance policy, the relevant voyage shall begin from April 20, 1995. However, the time of first start to the insured ship "M/V Canadian Harvest" was on May 30, which had passed 40 days. It cannot be regarded to start for sailing within the reasonable period. Afterwards, the insured ship was towed again on December 1, for the reparation to "M/V Neftegaz-16". The plaintiff did not inform all these circumstance to the defendant in time. The plaintiff's nonfeasance action had violated both the obligation to the contract stipulated in Article 7 of the insurance clause and the prescription in Article 235 of Maritime Law, and the plaintiff shall bear the legal liability.
　　　 In addition, this court holds that it is indeed that no evidence proves that the plaintiff had informed the fact that "M/V Canadian Harvest" is a laker to the defendant before the conclusion of contract. Nevertheless, the defendant's claim that, to the plaintiff, it is against Article 222 of Maritime Law lacks enough reason and evidence. In order to tow the relevant ship to China, Claude Lemay, the checker of maritime affairs working for Canadian Grobecks Maritime Affairs Company, issued the certificate, which proved the two relevant ships were fit for being towed twice. Though the defendant claims the certificates are ineffective, the validity of the certificates shall be affirmed owning to enough evidence. It can be proved in much evidence that the port of destination to the insured ship is in China. Therefore, the defendant's claim that the plaintiff changed the port of destination into Alang, India, lacks persuasion. Since there is enough evidence to prove the fact that Chenco Maritime Affairs Company bought the relevant ship and transferred to the plaintiff for export, the plaintiff takes the insurable interests to the insured ship according to law and the right to bring this action. "M/V Canadian Harvest" suffered stormy wave and sank in the course of navigation. There is no enough evidence to support the defendant's claim that the plaintiff failed to prove the loss to insurable subject resulted from the insurable risk listed on the insurance policy. Since the whole content of the ship insurance clause enacted by the People's Insurance Company of China on January 1, 1986, is on the back of the relevant insurance policy, the plaintiff's claim that the defendant told neither the above clause nor its content is lacking factually. To sum up, the insurance contract in this case if effective according to law, and the plaintiff takes the insurable interests to the relevant "M/V Canadian Harvest" and the right to bring this action according to law. However, it violates the prescription of law and the stipulation in the contract to the plaintiff neither to inform the defendant that the insured ship is used for pulling down before concluding the contract nor to inform the time of the second towage timely. Therefore, this court does not give our support to the plaintiff's claim. This court hereby decides as follow pursuant to Article 221, Clause 1 of Article 222, Article 223 and Article 235 of Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China: Not to support the plaintiff's claim.
　　　 The cost of this case if RMB 61,868.40, and shall be borne by the plaintiff.
　　　 If the plaintiff refuses to accept this judgement, it may submit its appeal petition to this court within 30 days after service of this judgement, together with a sufficient number of duplicated copies for each person the opposing party to have one copy, and the appeal shall be filed with the Higher People's Court of Shanghai. The appeal fee same with the cost decided in the first instance shall be submitted in advance within 7 days beginning from the day to submit appeal petition, otherwise it would be regarded as withdrawing the appeal automatically.
　　　

　　　 Presiding Judge: Ni Chunnan
　　　 Deputy Judge: Wang Guoliang 　　　　
　　　 Deputy Judge: Yang Lisha
　　　 Date: December 13, 1999
　　　 Court Clerk: Shen Jun