INTELLIGENT YOUTH LIMITED
智能青年有限公司

REPLY  答

A. INTRODUCTION  A. 引言

1. Unless otherwise stated, in this Reply:
   除非另有说明，否则在本回复中：
   1.1. The abbreviations used in the Statement of Claim (the “SOC”) dated 6 January 2025 and (on a non-admission basis) those in the Defence dated 6 March 2025 (the “Defence”) shall be adopted herein.
   1.1. 2025 年 1 月 6 日的索赔声明（“SOC”）和 2025 年 3 月 6 日的辩护书（“辩护”）中使用的缩写（“辩护”）应采用此处。
   1.2. References to the paragraph numbers and appendices are references to the corresponding paragraphs of the Defence.
   1.2. 对段落编号和附录的引用是指对辩护书相应段落的引用。
2. The Plaintiff joins issue with the Defendants on each and every allegation pleaded in their Defence save where the same consists of express admissions and save for any averment in the Defence expressly admitted herein.
   原告与被告就其辩护中提出的每一项指控提出争议，除非这些指控包括明确承认，并且除了此处明确承认的辩护中的任何陈述。
3. Paragraph 2 is denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff is not entitled to
   第 2 款被否决。明确否认原告无权
   enforce the 2022 Undertakings against the Defendant. Further:
   对被告执行 2022 年承诺。进一步：
   3.1. It is specifically denied that any claims which the Plaintiff may have against the Defendant under the 2022 Undertakings have been waived, released and/or discharged by reason of Clause 6.1 of the July 2023 SPA. Section B below is repeated.
   3.1. 明确否认原告根据 2022 年承诺对被告提出的任何索赔已因 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 6.1 条而被放弃、免除和/或解除。下面的 B 部分重复。
   3.2. It is also specifically denied that the 2022 Undertakings are unenforceable for lack of consideration. Paragraph 12 of the SOC and paragraphs 17 and 25 to 28 below are repeated.
   3.2. 还明确否认 2022 年承诺因缺乏对价而不可执行。SOC 第 12 段以及下文第 17 段和第 25 至 28 段重复。

B. NO WAIVER, RELEASE AND/OR DISCHARGE OF CLAIMS
B. 不得放弃、免除及/或解除索偿

4. Paragraph 4 is admitted, save it is denied that the Defendant is entitled to rely on Clause 6.1 of the July 2023 SPA by reason of matters set out in paragraphs 5 to 16 below.
   第 4 段获接纳，但被告人因下文第 5 至 16 段所列的事项而被否认有权依赖 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 6.1 条。
5. As to Paragraph 5, it is averred that:
   关于第 5 段，据称：
   5.1. The Defendant’s plea at Paragraphs 2.2, 6 and 21.2 that the 2022 Undertakings are “unenforceable for lack of consideration” is inconsistent with its plea at Paragraph 5 that the 2022 Undertakings are such “previous agreement(s)” under which (i) rights capable of being waived were created and (ii) claims from which parties could be released and discharged were found.
   5.1. 被告在第 2.2、6 和 21.2 段中辩称 2022 年承诺“因缺乏对价而无法执行”，这与被告在第 5 段中辩称 2022 年承诺是“先前的协议”不一致，根据该协议，（i） 创造了能够放弃的权利，以及 （ii） 找到了各方可以被免除和解除的索赔。
   5.2. The alleged waiver, release and/or discharged under Clause 6.1 of the July 2023 SPA is not supported by valid and/or valuable consideration and is thus unenforceable. Specifically:
   5.2. 根据 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 6.1 条提出的所谓弃权、免责和/或解除没有有效和/或有价值的对价支持，因此不可执行。具体说来：
   (1) The only consideration paid by the Defendant under the July 2023 SPA was that provided by Clause 3 therein, which states that the “consideration for the sale and purchase of the Sale Shares shall
   （1） 被告根据 2023 年 7 月买卖协议支付的唯一对价是其中第 3 条规定的对价，该条款规定“出售和购买销售股份的对价应
   be HK $\mathrm{\$}2.00$$\mathrm{\$}2.00$$2.00\$ 2.00 per Share amounting to a total amount of $HK\mathrm{\$}24,000,{000}^{\prime \prime }$$HK\mathrm{\$}24,000,{000}^{\prime \prime }$HK$24,000,000^('')H K \$ 24,000,000^{\prime \prime}. The Defendant duly made payment of the said amount on 12 July 2023. Paragraph 25.1 of the SOC is repeated.
   为 $\mathrm{\$}2.00$$\mathrm{\$}2.00$$2.00\$ 2.00 每股 HK，总金额为 $HK\mathrm{\$}24,000,{000}^{\prime \prime }$$HK\mathrm{\$}24,000,{000}^{\prime \prime }$HK$24,000,000^('')H K \$ 24,000,000^{\prime \prime} 。被告于 2023 年 7 月 12 日正式支付了上述款项。重申 SOC 的第 25.1 段。
   (2) The Defendant gave no valuable consideration for the Plaintiff’s alleged waiver, release and/or discharge of rights and claims under Clause 6.1 of the July 2023 SPA. At the time of signing the July 2023 SPA, the Defendant had no outstanding rights or claims against the Plaintiff under the 2022 Undertakings.
   （2） 被告人没有就原告人指称放弃、免除及/或解除 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 6.1 条下的权利和申索给予有价值的代价。在签署 2023 年 7 月买卖协议时，被告人根据 2022 年承诺对原告人并无未决的权利或申索。
   5.3. On a proper construction of Clause 6.1 of the July 2023 SPA, the reference to “Shares” should be construed as a reference to “Sale Shares” as defined under Clause 1.1 of the July 2023 SPA.
   5.3. 根据 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 6.1 条的正确解释，对“股份”的引用应解释为 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 1.1 条中定义的“销售股份”。
   (1) Clause 1.1 of the July 2023 SPA provides that " “Sale Shares” means an aggregate of 12,000,000 Shares” (i.e. the 12M Sale Shares).
   （1） 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 1.1 条规定，“'销售股份'是指 12,000,000 股的总额”（即 12M 销售股份）。
   (2) The reference to “Shares” in Clause 6.1 of the July 2023 SPA is a clear mistake on the face of the instrument. Specifically:
   （2） 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 6.1 条中提及“股份”，从表面上看显然是错误的。具体说来：
   (a) Under Clause 2 of the July 2023 SPA, the subject matter of the July 2023 SPA was the 12M Sale Shares.
   （a） 根据 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 2 条，2023 年 7 月买卖协议的标的物是 12M 出售股份。
   (b) The July 2023 SPA only provided for consideration for the 12M Sale Shares. Paragraph 5.2 above is repeated.
   （b） 2023 年 7 月的买卖协议仅规定了 12M 销售股份的对价。上文第 5.2 段重复。
   © The reference to “Shares” in Clause 6.1 of the July 2023 SPA would effectively supersede agreements completely unrelated to the subject matter of the July 2023 SPA, including the April 2021 SPA which concerns the “sale” and “purchase” of 78,319,938 Plaintiff’s ordinary shares in
   © 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 6.1 条中提及的“股份”将有效地取代与 2023 年 7 月买卖协议主题完全无关的协议，包括 2021 年 4 月的买卖协议，该协议涉及“出售”和“购买”原告的 78,319,938 股普通股
   (3) It is clear that in order to cure the mistake, the reference to “Shares” ought to be construed as reference to “Sale Shares”.
   （3） 很明显，为了纠正错误，对“股份”的引用应解释为对“出售股份”的引用。
   5.4. Further or alternatively, insofar as the Defendant’s construction of Clause 6.1 of the July 2023 SPA set out therein is correct (which is denied), it is averred that the Defendant is not entitled to rely on the same by reason of estoppel by representation and/or estoppel by convention as particularised in Sections B1 and B2 hereinbelow.
   5.4. 此外，如果被告对 2023 年 7 月买卖协议第 6.1 条的解释是正确的（被否认），则被告无权依据下文 B1 和 B2 节中具体规定的陈述禁止反言和/或惯例禁止反言。

B1. Shared assumption #1: Partial discharge
B1.共同假设 #1：局部放电

6. Prior to the execution of the July 2023 SPA, the Defendant represented to the Plaintiff that (i) the Defendant would meet the obligations owed to the Plaintiff under the 2022 Undertakings in tranches, and (ii) the Defendant’s outstanding obligations under the 2022 Undertakings would be dealt with separately and in tranches (“Partial Discharge Representation”). Paragraphs 19 to 20 of the SOC are repeated.
   在执行 2023 年 7 月买卖协议之前，被告人向原告人表示 （i） 被告人将分批履行 2022 年承诺项下对原告人负有的义务，以及 （ii） 被告人在 2022 年承诺项下未履行的义务将单独分期处理（“部分解除陈述”）。SOC 的第 19 至 20 段重复。
7. Further or alternatively, the Partial Discharge Representation was a shared assumption between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of signing the July 2023 SPA (“Partial Discharge Assumption”).
   此外，部分解除陈述是原告和被告在签署 2023 年 7 月买卖协议时的共同假设（“部分解除假设”）。
8. The Plaintiff further relies on the parties’ conduct upon the completion of the 2023 SPA which is consistent with the Partial Discharge Representation and/or Partial Discharge Assumption:
   原告进一步依赖双方在 2023 年 SPA 完成后的行为，这与部分解除陈述和/或部分解除假设一致：
   8.1. After the completion of the July SPA on 12 July 2023, Mr. Lei (on behalf of the Plaintiff) had on multiple occasions demanded and the Defendant to perform its obligations in respect of the Remaining Subject Shares.
   8.1. 在 2023 年 7 月 12 日完成 7 月 SPA 后，李先生（代表原告人）多次要求被告人履行其对剩余标的股份的责任。
   8.2. In response, Mr . Fu (on behalf of the Defendant) informed the Plaintiff
   8.2. 作为回应，Mr .付（代表被告人）通知原告人
   that he lacked cash to pay the Plaintiff and proposed to use his property development in Guangzhou（called＂晓庐＂）to set－off part of the Defendant＇s obligations in respect of the Remaining Subject Shares．On 4 September 2023，Mr．Fu（on behalf of the Defendant）shared the information of the said property development with Mr．Lei（on behalf of the Plaintiff）through WeChat messages．
   2023 年 9 月 4 日，傅先生（代表被告人）通过微信消息与雷先生（代表原告人）分享了该物业发展项目的资料，并提议利用其在广州的物业发展项目（称为「晓庐」）抵销被告人对剩余标的股份的部分责任。

B2. Shared assumption #2: Pro Forma SPA
B2.共同假设 #2：形式 SPA

12. At the time of signing the July 2023 SPA, there was a shared assumption between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the July 2023 SPA would be in the same format as the Pro Forma SPA and that they should have the same effect (“Pro Forma Assumption”). The Plaintiff relies on the following matters:
    在签署 2023 年 7 月的买卖协议时，原告人和被告人之间有一个共同的假设，即 2023 年 7 月的买卖协议将与备考买卖协议的格式相同，并且它们应具有相同的效力（“备考假设”）。原告人依赖以下事项：
    12.1. Prior to the execution of the July 2023 SPA, the Plaintiff and the Defendant all along negotiated and entered into agreements on the basis of the Pro Forma SPA, which was first drafted by the Defendant. Specifically:
    12.1. 在 2023 年 7 月签署买卖协议之前，原告人和被告一直根据被告最初起草的备考买卖协议进行谈判和签订协议。具体说来：
    (1) The April 2021 SPA, which was also first drafted by the Defendant, contains the same substantial contents as the Pro Forma SPA.
    （1） 2021 年 4 月的买卖协议也是由被告人首次起草的，包含与备考买卖协议相同的实质性内容。
    (2) The substantial contents of the Pro Forma SPA annexed to both the 2021 Put Option Undertaking and 2022 Put Option Undertaking were exactly the same.
    （2） 2021 年认沽期权承诺及 2022 年认沽期权承诺所附的备考买卖协议的主要内容完全相同。
    (3) The pro forma sale and purchase agreement contained in the drafts of the new undertakings provided by Mr. Deng as pleaded in Paragraph 19 also contains the same substantial contents as the Pro Forma SPA.
    （3） 邓先生提供的新承诺草案中所载的备考买卖协议（如第19段所述）也包含与备考买卖协议相同的实质性内容。
    12.2. Consistently, the Plaintiff and the Defendant had adopted the same “whole agreement” clause all along:
    12.2. 原告和被告一直采用相同的“完整协议”条款：
    (1) Clause 6.1 of the April 2021 SPA entitled “Whole Agreement” provides that: “This Agreement contains the whole agreement
    （1） 2021 年 4 月买卖协议第 6.1 条标题为“完整协议”规定：“本协议包含完整协议
    among the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement to the exclusion of any terms implied by law which may be excluded by contract and supersedes any previous written or oral agreement among the Parties in relation to the matters in this Agreement.”
    在与本协议标的物有关的各方之间，排除法律默示的任何条款，这些条款可能被合同排除，并取代双方之间先前就本协议事项达成的任何书面或口头协议。
    (2) Clause 6.2 of the Pro Forma SPA entitled “Whole Agreement” provides that: “This Agreement contains the whole agreement among the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement to the exclusion of any terms implied by law which may be excluded by contract and supersedes any previous written or oral agreement among the Parties in relation to the matters in this Agreement.” For the avoidance of doubt, there was no clause 6.1 in the Pro Forma SPA.
    （2） 形式买卖协议第 6.2 条标题为“完整协议”，规定：“本协议包含双方之间就本协议标的物达成的完整协议，不包括法律默示的、合同可能排除的任何条款，并取代双方之间先前就本协议事项达成的任何书面或口头协议。为免生疑问，Form SPA 中没有第 6.1 条。
    (3) Clause 6.1 of the pro forma sale and purchase agreement contained in the drafts of the new undertakings provided by Mr. Deng as pleaded in Paragraph 19 entitled “Whole Agreement” provides that: “This Agreement contains the whole agreement among the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement to the exclusion of any terms implied by law which may be excluded by contract and supersedes any previous written or oral agreement among the Parties in relation to the matters in this Agreement.”
    （3） 邓先生提供的新承诺草案中包含的形式买卖协议第 6.1 条，如第 19 段“完整协议”所述规定：“本协议包含双方之间就本协议标的事项达成的完整协议，但不包括法律默示的任何条款，这些条款可能被合同排除，并取代与本协议中的事项有关的各方。
    12.3. Paragraph 22 of the SOC is repeated.
    12.3. 重复 SOC 的第 22 段。
    12.4. On the Defendant’s own case (which is not admitted by reason of matters pleaded in paragraph 35 below), on 10 May 2023, Mr. Deng on behalf of the Defendant sent a draft sale and purchase agreement to Mr. Lei which adopted the same format as the Pro Forma SPA.
    12.4. 在被告本人的案件中（由于下文第 35 段所述事项未被承认），邓先生于 2023 年 5 月 10 日代表被告向雷先生发送了一份买卖协议草案，该草案采用与备考 SPA 相同的格式。
13. The Defendant intended the Pro Forma Assumption to be relied on by the
    被告打算依赖 Pro Forma Assumption

C. No Lack of CONSIDERATION
C. 不缺乏考虑

17. Paragraph 6 is denied. Specifically:
    第 6 款被否决。具体说来：
    17.1. As to Paragraph 6.1, it is specifically denied that that the 2022 Undertakings were only signed by the Defendant render the 2022 Undertakings unenforceable for lack of consideration.
    17.1. 关于第 6.1 段，明确否认 2022 年承诺仅由被告签署，导致 2022 年承诺因缺乏对价而无法执行。
    17.2. As to Paragraph 6.2:
    17.2. 关于第 6.2 段：
    (1) It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff did not provide, or agree to provide, anything in return for the Defendant’s provision for the 2022 Undertakings. Paragraph 12 of the SOC is repeated.
    （1） 明确否认原告没有提供或同意提供任何东西以换取被告对 2022 年承诺的规定。重申 SOC 的第 12 段。
    (2) Further and in any event, by valid delivery of the Exercise Notice, binding obligations were created against the Defendant as the promisor under the 2022 Undertakings. Paragraph 16 of the SOC is repeated. This is regardless of whether the 2022 Undertakings
    （2） 此外，无论如何，通过有效交付行使通知，对作为 2022 年承诺项下承诺人的被告产生了具有约束力的义务。SOC 的第 16 段重复。这与 2022 年承诺是否
    were independently enforceable.
    是可独立执行的。

D. THE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM
D. 被告人对申索陈述书的回应

D1. The Parties  D1.各方

18. The second sentence of Paragraph 11 is not admitted. It is averred that Mr. You Fan did not represent the Defendant in its negotiations with the Plaintiff, although he was involved in the execution of the parties’ agreements.
    第 11 款的第二句不被采纳。据称，游帆先生并未代表被告人与原告人进行谈判，尽管他参与了双方协议的执行。

D2. Agreed Sale and Purchase of Hopefluent Shares
D2.同意买卖 Hopefluent 股票

19. Paragraph 12 is denied. It is averred that, in or around late 2020:
    第 12 段被否决。据推测，在 2020 年底或前后：
    19.1. Mr. Fu (on behalf of the Defendant) reached out to the Plaintiff and expressed an intention to purchase all of the Plaintiff’s shares in Hopefluent, which comprised of $16.6\mathrm{\%}$$16.6\mathrm{\%}$16.6%16.6 \% Hopefluent’s ordinary shares. Paragraph 4 of the SOC is repeated.
    19.1. 付先生（代表被告）联系原告，表示有意购买原告在 Hopefluent 的所有股份，其中包括 $16.6\mathrm{\%}$$16.6\mathrm{\%}$16.6%16.6 \% Hopefluent 的普通股。重申 SOC 的第 4 段。
    19.2. At the time, Mr. Fu was an executive director of Hopefluent, while his father, Mr. Fu Weicong, was its Chairman and executive director.
    19.2. 当时，付先生是合流先生的执行董事，而他的父亲付伟聪先生是其主席兼执行董事。
    19.3. Mr. Fu informed the Plaintiff that:
    19.3. 傅先生通知原告：
    (1) Country Garden Services Holdings Limited (“Country Garden”) intended to become the majority shareholder of Hopefluent by acquiring ordinary shares in Hopefluent through Mr. Fu. Mr. Fu was and is a close acquaintance of Ms. Yang Huiyan, a substantial shareholder in Country Garden.
    （1） 碧桂园服务控股有限公司（「碧桂园」）拟透过傅先生收购合流畅的普通股，成为合流的大股东。傅先生过去和现在都是碧桂园主要股东杨慧燕女士的熟人。
    (2) Mr. Fu needed to acquire the Plaintiff’s entire shareholding in Hopefluent to satisfy Country Garden’s need.
    （2） 傅先生需要收购原告在 Hopefluent 的全部股权，以满足碧桂园的需要。
    19.4. However, as Mr. Fu lacked the financial means to purchase all Plaintiff’s Shares altogether, the transaction was divided into the April 2021 SPA and 2021 Undertakings (which were subsequently replaced by the 2022 Undertakings).
    19.4. 然而，由于傅先生缺乏完全购买原告人所有股份的财务能力，该交易分为 2021 年 4 月买卖协议和 2021 年承诺（随后被 2022 年承诺取代）。
20. The second sentence of Paragraph 14 is denied. Specifically:
    第 14 段的第二句被否定。具体说来：
    20.1. As to Paragraph 14.1, it is specifically denied that that the 2021 Undertakings were only signed by the Defendant render the 2021 Undertakings unenforceable for lack of consideration.
    20.1. 关于第 14.1 段，明确否认 2021 年承诺仅由被告签署，导致 2021 年承诺因缺乏对价而无法执行。
    20.2. As to Paragraph 14.2 , it is specifically denied that the Plaintiff did not provide, or agree to provide, anything in return for the Defendant’s provision for the 2021 Undertakings. The Plaintiff entered into the April 2021 SPA with the Defendant and continued negotiations with the Defendant in relation to the sale of the Plaintiff’s Shares. Paragraph 19 above is repeated.
    20.2. 关于第 14.2 段，明确否认原告没有提供或同意提供任何东西作为被告为 2021 年承诺的规定提供的回报。原告人与被告人签订了 2021 年 4 月的买卖协议，并继续与被告人就出售原告人的股份进行谈判。上文第 19 段重复。
    20.3. Further and in any event, it is averred that the enforceability of the 2021 Undertakings is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s claim by reason of matters set out in paragraphs 17.2(2) above and 26 below.
    20.3. 此外，无论如何，由于上文第 17.2（2） 段和下文第 26 段中规定的事项，2021 年承诺的可执行性与原告的索赔无关。
21. As to the second sentence of Paragraph 17, paragraph 20 above is repeated.
    关于第 17 段的第二句，重复了上文第 20 段。

D3. The 2022 Put Option
D3.2022 年认沽期权

22. As to Paragraph 18:  关于第 18 段：
    22.1. As to Paragraph 18.1, it is averred that Mr. Fu had from time to time informed Mr. Lei of the general progress of potential projects involving Hopefluent and Country Garden. At all material times:
    22.1. 关于第 18.1 段，傅先生曾不时通知雷先生涉及合富及碧桂园的潜在项目的一般进展。在所有关键时间：
    (1) To the best of the Plaintiff’s knowledge, Mr. Fu acted as
    （1） 据原告所知，傅先生担任

D4. The July 2023 SPA
D4.2023 年 7 月的水疗

30. As to Paragraph 27:  关于第 27 段：
    30.1. It is averred that the Plaintiff was not involved in Hopefluent’s negotiations concerning projects with Country Garden. Paragraph 22
    30.1. 原告人并未参与合富汇与碧桂园有关项目的谈判。第 22 段
    above is repeated.  以上重复。
    30.2. It is admitted that the meetings and communications as pleaded in Paragraphs 27.1 to 27.7 took place. However, it is averred that the focus of the said meetings and communications was in relation to the Defendant’s performance of the 2022 Undertakings. It is denied to the extent that it is suggested that a “new proposal” which would completely absolve the Defendant of its liability under the 2022 Undertakings was discussed.
    30.2. 本法院承认，第 27.1 至 27.7 段中请求的会议和通信已经发生。然而，上述会议和通信的重点是与被告履行 2022 年承诺有关。被告人否认的程度是，有人建议一项“新建议”将完全免除被告人在 2022 年承诺下的责任。
    30.3. It is further averred that after the Plaintiff’s valid exercise of the 2022 Put Option, Mr. Fu (on behalf of the Defendant) has always maintained that the Defendant could only fulfil its obligations in respect of the 2022 Undertakings after the completion of transaction with Country Garden. As such, Mr. Lei (on behalf of the Plaintiff) has consistently followed up with Mr. Fu (on behalf of the Defendant) the progress of such transaction with Country Garden.
    30.3. 此外，在原告人有效行使 2022 年认沽期权后，傅先生（代表被告人）一直坚称，被告人只有在完成与碧桂园的交易后才能履行其对 2022 年承诺的义务。因此，雷先生（代表原告人）一直与付先生（代表被告人）跟进与碧桂园的交易进度。
    30.4. Save as aforesaid, Paragraph 27 is not admitted.
    30.4. 除上述情况外，第 27 段不被接受。
31. As to Paragraph 29:  关于第 29 段：
    31.1. Paragraph 19 of the SOC is repeated.
    31.1. 重复 SOC 的第 19 段。
    31.2. As to the third sentence, it is averred that purported “new proposal” was in relation to the Defendant’s performance of its obligations under the 2022 Undertakings. Paragraph 30.2 above is repeated.
    31.2. 关于第三句，据称“新提案”与被告履行其在 2022 年承诺下的义务有关。上文第 30.2 段重复。
32. Paragraph 31 denied. Paragraph 20.1 of the SOC is repeated.
    第 31 段被否决。重申 SOC 的第 20.1 段。
33. As to Paragraph 32:  关于第 32 段：
    33.1. It is admitted that Mr. Deng and Mr. Lei met in Chongqing on or about
    33.1. 双方承认，邓先生和雷先生于当天或前后在重庆相遇

D5. Breach of the Undertakings
D5.违反承诺

42. Paragraph 41.1 is denied. In any event, paragraph 8 above is repeated.
    第 41.1 段被否决。无论如何，上述第 8 段是重复的。
43. As to the second sentence of paragraphs 41.3 and 42 , paragraph 3 above is repeated.
    关于第 41.3 段和第 42 段的第二句，重复上文第 3 段。

D6. The Defendant's purported explanation
D6.被告人的解释

44. As to the second sentence of Paragraph 44, paragraphs 33 to Error! Reference source not found. above are repeated.
    至于第 44 段的第二句，第 33 段到错误！找不到引用源。以上重复。
45. As to the second sentence of paragraph 45, Section D4 above is repeated.
    关于第 45 段的第二句，重复了上文的 D4 节。

D7. Relief  D7.救济

46. As to the second sentence of paragraph 47, paragraph 3 above is repeated.
    关于第 47 段的第二句，重复了上文第 3 段。

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 2213 OF 2024
香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭 2024 年第 2213 号诉讼

REPLY  答