According to media reports, after Jia Yueting, the original actual controller of LETV, applied for personal bankruptcy, the original Beijing LETV building will be auctioned on November 18, 2019. But when the auction approached, it was suddenly stopped. According to the announcement of Jingdong judicial online auction platform: the reason for the suspension of the auction of Lerong building (formerly LETV building) is that outsiders raised objections to the auction property.
Tianyancha app shows that on August 3, the civil judgment of the first instance of the action against outsiders in the case of LETV information technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Zhongtai Chuangzhan Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. was made public, case No. (2019) jing03 minchu No. 620, and the trial court was the third intermediate people’s Court of Beijing.
According to the judgment, the plaintiff LETV claimed that on May 7, 2019, Beijing No. 3 intermediate people’s court asked LETV to vacate from Lerong building for subsequent auction of the property. LETV and Hongcheng Xintai signed a lease agreement according to law. The agreement has come into force and has not yet expired. According to Article 229 of the contract law, LETV has the right to continue leasing at the price and conditions agreed in the original lease agreement until the lease agreement expires. The third intermediate people’s court’s execution ruling No. 383 wrongly denied the nature of the lease contract in this case, and denied the nature of the house lease contract in this case by using the payment method of rent to offset the arrears, which is an error in the determination of facts, so it requested to revoke the execution ruling No. 383 (2019) Jing 03 Zhi Yi, etc.
The defendant Zhongtai Chuangzhan company argued that a series of lease agreements signed by LETV and Hongcheng Xintai company were the result of malicious collusion. The rent agreed in the lease agreement was seriously low, and the rent was used to offset the arrears. It was called lease, which was actually debt repayment.
The court held that the evidence submitted by LETV could not prove that it had actually occupied and used floors 1-14, building 3, No. 105 yaojiayuan Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing before the Court seized the house involved. Although LETV provided documents to prove the true existence of its creditor’s rights, it only provided the contents of the agreement and failed to provide evidence to prove the basis for the performance of the agreement and the confirmation of creditor’s rights, The existing evidence of LETV can not prove that it actually performed the Hongcheng Xintai office building lease contract and the supplementary agreement and actually paid the rent.
The judgment result of this case is to reject all claims of LETV information technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. The case acceptance fee is 6118281 yuan, which is borne by LETV information technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (paid).