【正文】 s license of Jiang Nan Company provided in the first instance by the appellee, the Reckoning Group, this does sufficiently prove that Jiang Nan Company is a joint v。s reply, also soliciting the opinions from the various parties, the focus of the case is that：　　1. Whether does the Reckoning Group have qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case or not？　　2. Whether is it valid or not that the allautomatic glove machine purchasesale contract was signed by the three parties on May 6, 1998？　　3. Whether is it valid or not that the promise agreement was signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998？　　4. Whether is there anything illegal in the legal proceedings for the court in charge of the first instance？　　In the second trial, the evidence provided by the various parties is the same as that in the first instance, there is no new evidence given by each of them. Therefore, in the second trial, what our court has found out is the same as what the former court found out in the first instance. Regarding the abovementioned focal issues, what our court has generally analyzed is as follows：　?。↖） Whether does the Reckoning Group have the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case or not？　　The appellee, the Reckoning Group, thinks that, its foundation is legal, so it has the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case. Furthermore, it has provided the document No. 53 Hui Jing Fa Zi [2001] “the Approved Reply Paper about the Foundation of the Reckoning Group by Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd”, which proves that the foundation of the Reckoning Group has been approved by the state foreign trade branch in charge.　　The appellant, Fei Da Company, has no objection to the authenticity of the document Hui Jing Fa [2001], which has been provided by the Reckoning Group. However, Fei Da Company thinks that Hui Nan Company is the privately owned business, the Reckoning Group should have been established by the Board of Directors. Fei Da Company has also provided the document Hui Jing Fa [1993] by the Economy Development Bureau of Hui Cun Border Economy Cooperation District, which is about “The Ratified Reply Paper to the Application for Establishing Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd in the Border Economy Cooperation District by Jiang Nan Industry Ltd and the Fibre Society （which is the only one in South Korea）”； Fei Day Company has also provided the list of the board of directors, which proves that Jiang Nan Company is the privately owned business. Thus, the Reckoning Group doesn39。s rights and the debt.　　2. According to the 4th item, the 5th, the 6th and the 7th item in the allautomatic glove machine purchasesale contract signed by the three parties on May 6, 1998, it is unnecessary for Fei Da Company to have the importsexports business license ratified by the Foreign Economy andTrade Ministry. Hence, the contract signed by the three parties on May 6, 1998, is just an ordinary domestic purchasesale contract, not an importsexports purchasesale contract, which should be considered valid.　　3. The promise agreement, which was signed by the legal representative Jiang NanCun of Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998, belongs to an invalid one.　　4. The Farming Production Society claims that： the facts identified in the first instance are clear and the law applied is proper, requesting the court should turn down the appeal and maintain the judgment in the first instance.　　Summarizing the appellant39。 “： ”The parties make the contract beyond the business scope, the people39。s Republic of China》, the appellant, Fei Da Company, has had no the approval license from the foreign economytrade department of the State Council, what is more, has had no definite or specific foreign trade business scope, hence, the contract signed by the two sides should be invalid because of having violated the pulsive rules of the state law. （3） According to Rule No. 10 in the Section I ”Solutions Applicable to Some Issues in ’Contract Law, People39。 ”by the People39。 claim should be rejected, as they have no qualification of subject of action, and the, money for purchase of the glove machines and footwear machines had been settled in the reconciliation agreement reached by and between both parties on December 18, 1998, is untenable, and cannot be supported by the Court. In accordance with the stipulation of Article 6, Article 29 Section 3, Articles 31 and 32 of the Economic Contract Law of the People39。 claim that the defendant shall pay RMB￥322, 307, RMB￥64, 461 of fine for breach of contract and RMB￥4, of freight is supported by the Court； the plaintiff KOMARA Co.39。t have enough evidence of the cause of the loss of RMB￥627, 250, so the claim of KOMARA Co. couldn39。t know KOMARA Co.39。t deliver 40 sets of the glove machines was the individual act of KOMARA Co., which didn39。t be performed for reasons. Both parties had a dispute about relevant issues. Then Party B filed a suit in Intermediate Peoples Court of Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Yanbian, Jilin Province. Now both parties came to a reconciliation agreement through friendly negotiation between legal representatives of both parties as follows： 1. The total price of the footwear machines is calculated as RMB￥935,000, and Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥180,000 in lump sum for the footwear machines in addition to the money paid to Party B and the money paid by Party A in advance during sales； 2. The total price of the glove machines, seaming machines and fittings is calculated as RMB￥845, 308, and Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥80, 000 （eighty thousand yuan only） in lump sum in addition to RMB￥765, 308 paid by Party A for the glove machines, seaming machines and fittings； 3. Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥260, 000 （two hundred and sixty thousand yuan only） in lump sum of the above two items； 4.