Plaintiff lessor FLORENS ASSET MANAGEMENT (SINGAPORE) PTE. LIMITED., and Defendant lessee HANJIN SHIPPING CO., LTD. (with ownership of 34% of the equity of Outsider Zhejiang Dongbang Repair and Building Co., Ltd.) concluded a long-term container leasing agreement and supplementary agreement, agreeing that Plaintiff lessor would lease 21,638 containers to Defendant lessee. After the contract was concluded, both parties fulfilled the agreement normally until May 2016, when the lessee failed to pay the rent on time as agreed in the contract. Afterwards, the lessee paid $365,520.24 to the lessor, and the lessee owed a total of $7,005,336.53 in rent. The lessor issued a written notice to Defendant lessee, claiming rent and other related debts from the lessee, and requiring them to rectify the breach of contract as soon as possible. The lessee sent a letter stating that it would terminate all container leasing agreements concluded with the lessor starting from September 1, 2016. The lessor reclaimed 11,749 containers and filed an action before the court. The court held that (1) the court had jurisdiction because Defendant lessee had a 34% equity interest in Zhejiang Dongbang Repair and Building Co., Ltd. located in the jurisdiction of the court, and Plaintiff lessor took preservation measures for this equity interest. (2) Plaintiff lessor and Defendant lessee agreed that the contract should be governed by English law and should provide legal opinions to the court through legal channels. The law applicable to the contract should be recognized. In addition, there were no limited exceptions to the content of the contract involved under English law, so the contract involved was legal and valid under English law. Plaintiff lessor had the right to claim that Defendant lessee pay rent $7,005,336.53 and corresponding late fee as agreed. Considering that Defendant lessee paid $365,520.24 to Plaintiff lessor and there was no evidence to indicate that the amount was used to pay any due bills, it should be confirmed to offset the unpaid rent that occurred earlier. (3) Plaintiff lessor had the right to claim DRV fee from Defendant lessee for 9,889 containers that were not recovered according to the contract, and Plaintiff lessor had the right to claim that Defendant lessee pay the rent for 11,749 containers recovered from August 31, 2016 to the actual date of recovery. Plaintiff lessor’s claim amount based on the rent standard (which was less than the calculation standard agreed in the contract) had the effect of reducing the Plaintiff lessor’s claim loss amount, and could be supported under English law.