Core Viewpoint - Shanghai Zhuoran Engineering Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") is currently involved in a lawsuit initiated by Jiangsu Zhuoran Enterprise Service Co., Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary, against Jiangsu Jingjiang Port Group Co., Ltd. regarding a rental contract dispute, with the total amount in question being approximately 43.24 million yuan [1][2][3]. Group 1: Lawsuit Overview - The lawsuit has been accepted by the court but has not yet gone to trial [1][2]. - Jiangsu Zhuoran is the defendant in this case, with the plaintiff being Jiangsu Jingjiang Port Group [2]. - The total amount claimed by the plaintiff includes overdue rent, penalty fees, and usage fees, amounting to 43.24 million yuan [1][3]. Group 2: Details of the Dispute - The rental agreement was signed on January 1, 2020, with a term running until December 31, 2024, at an annual rent of 33.91 million yuan [4]. - The plaintiff claims that the defendant has not paid the rent for the year 2024, totaling 23.91 million yuan, and has incurred penalties for late payment [3][4]. - The defendant also owes usage fees for the period from January 1, 2025, to July 18, 2025, amounting to 18.49 million yuan [3][4]. Group 3: Company's Response and Impact - The Company has engaged a professional legal team to respond to the lawsuit and plans to file a counterclaim against Jiangsu Jingjiang Port Group for overpaid rent [5]. - The Company anticipates that the lawsuit will not have a significant impact on its daily operations, although the outcome remains uncertain [6]. - The Company will continue to fulfill its information disclosure obligations as the case progresses [6].

Core Points - The company has received a ruling from the Hangzhou Gongshu District People's Court regarding a rental contract dispute with Hangzhou Haiwei Hotel Management Co., Ltd. and other parties, which has led to the termination of the execution process due to the lack of available assets for enforcement as of August 29, 2025 [1][2] - The ruling allows the applicant to request the defendants to continue fulfilling their debt obligations and to reapply for enforcement if any executable assets are discovered [1][2] - The termination of the execution process is not expected to have a significant impact on the company's current or future profits, and the company will handle accounting matters based on the progress of the case [2] Summary by Sections - **Legal Proceedings** - The company is involved in a legal dispute concerning a rental contract, with the court ruling that the execution process is terminated due to the absence of enforceable assets [1] - The defendants are still obligated to fulfill their debt obligations to the company [2] - **Financial Impact** - The termination of the execution process is not anticipated to materially affect the company's profits for the current or future periods [2] - The company will conduct relevant accounting treatments based on the case's developments, with final financial data subject to confirmation by the annual audit [2]

Core Viewpoint - The company has received a court ruling regarding the termination of execution procedures related to a rental contract dispute with Hangzhou Haiwei Hotel Management Co., Ltd. and others, indicating that the execution of the case has not been fulfilled as of August 29, 2025 [1][2]. Group 1 - The court has ruled to terminate the execution procedures due to the absence of executable assets from the defendants, which include Hai Lai (Tianjin) Life Service Co., Ltd., Gong Zhaoqing, and Zhang Xiaoling [1]. - The company retains the right to request the defendants to fulfill their debt obligations and can reapply for execution if executable assets are discovered [1][2]. - The termination of the execution procedures is not expected to significantly impact the company's current or future profits, and the company will handle accounting matters based on the progress of the case [2].

Group 1 - The case involves a rental contract dispute due to pet ownership, where the court upheld the "no pets" clause as a valid term to protect the rental property [1][2] - The court ruled that damages caused by the pet, such as structural damage to furniture and cleaning costs, were not considered normal wear and tear, thus the landlord was entitled to compensation [2] - The final judgment required the tenant to pay a total of 14,000 yuan in damages and penalties, which included a reduced penalty of 1,000 yuan for breach of contract [3] Group 2 - The court emphasized the principle of "necessity + reasonableness" in determining damages, allowing for compensation only for actual losses incurred [2] - The court rejected the landlord's claim for tax fees, stating that the rental agreement's provision for the tenant to bear tax fees constituted double charging, as the rent already included these fees [2] - The tenant's appeal was dismissed, and the original ruling was upheld by the appellate court, making the judgment final [3]