Shanghai Baoshan District People's Court in civil judgments ________________________________________ (2014) Bao Min Er (to) Chu Zi No. 150? No. plaintiff Shanghai ????? Limited. Legal representative Liu **. Attorney Chen Dezi kaicong the lawyer. Attorney Wang Saina kaicong the lawyer. Ltd. Shanghai Brilliance ????? defendant. ** Tao legal representative. ????? Plaintiff Shanghai Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company **) and the defendant Shanghai Brilliance ????? Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company **) contract dispute case, the Court on July 1, 2014 filing After accepting, according to a collegial panel open court session. ** Plaintiff's attorney Wang Saina present at the proceedings. ** Defendant company legally summoned by the hospital refuses to appear in court without justified reasons, the Court according to the law the hearing. The case is now end of the trial. ** Plaintiff company alleged that: a trading business between the plaintiff and the defendant, from March 2009 to April 2013, the plaintiff and the defendant repeated pigment, like the sale of goods by electricity. Plaintiff by the defendant about the goods sent to a designated place to fulfill the obligations and issued a * Delivery of goods increased from the defendant acknowledgment of receipt. The two sides agreed to scroll batch mode defendant to pay the purchase price, in accordance with customary industry practice and parties to the transaction, the defendant shall be paid within three months after the receipt. But after repeated dunning plaintiff, defendant last payment on March 15, 2013 $ 10,000 payment to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not paid outstanding. March 27, 2014 the defendant Wu, head of verification and confirm the payment of $ 100,000 owed to the plaintiff, and said it would be paid within 2 years. But since then, nothing outstanding defendant, not the plaintiff dun it is taken to court, requesting an order the defendant to pay the plaintiff 102,012.9 yuan loan, pay interest on late payment ......