本报讯（记者王晓飞）准备参加2013年的研究生考试，参加“保过班”，交费上课后发现学校的师资力量缺乏，怀疑学校不具备办学资质，起诉培训学校索赔4.3万余元。海淀法院上午开庭审理此案。

Report from our correspondent(Reporter WangXiaoFei)In preparing for the exam of postgraduate in 2013,to"Assured class",The class fee found school teachers lack,Doubt the school does not have the qualifications,Sue claim training school more than 43000 yuan.Haidian court trial in the morning session.

　　洪某诉称，他打算报考2013年的研究生考试，上网查询发现北京凯程博远教育科技有限公司承诺：参加培训的学员都能顺利考研。

Flood a lawsuit argues that,He is going to enter oneself for an examination the graduate student test in 2013,The Internet inquires the found Beijing KaiCheng rich far education technology co., LTD. Promise:To participate in training the students can smooth one's deceased father grind.

　　2012年6月7日，洪某与凯程博远公司签订培训合同，并支付了42000元培训费。洪某到学校培训时发现师资力量不足，住宿和教学环境非常差，与前期宣传严重不符。

On June 7, 2012,A flood and KaiCheng rich far to sign the training contract,And pay 42000 yuan training.A flood to school teachers training found insufficient,Accommodation and teaching environment is very bad,And the publicity not serious.

　　洪某认为，凯程博远公司通过虚假宣传诱骗他签订合同，以对方没有教育培训资格，不具备教育培训能力为由，起诉要求解除合同。

Flood a think,KaiCheng rich far the company through the false propaganda lure him sign a contract,With each other without education training qualification,Do not have the ability education training grounds,Sue asks to cancel the contract.

　　上午9时30分，洪某没有到庭，其代理律师代为出庭。

9 am 30 points,Not to attend a flood,The attorney to appear in court.

　　庭审中，法庭传唤了洪某所在班级的班主任出庭作证。

hearing,The court summons the flood in a class teacher in charge to appear in court to testify.

　　“据我了解，洪某与学校之间的矛盾起因是空调温度太低。”证人称，洪某嫌宿舍空调温度太低，要求学校遵守室温低于26摄氏度不可以开空调的约定，并且洪某和其他同学经常出现小矛盾，因此才离开学校。

"I understand,A school teacher and the contradiction between the cause is air conditioning temperature is too low."Witness says,Flood a too dormitory air conditioning temperature is too low,Require schools to abide by the room temperature is lower than 26 degrees Celsius can't open air conditioning agreement,And flood a and the other students often appear small contradictions,So didn't leave the school.

　　被告认为，今年九、十月份洪某还在听学校的视频课，老师也给其相应的回复和服务。“我们认为合同仍在继续履行，并且原告本人也需要老师的督促才可以很好地完成学业，所以无论从哪个方面讲合同都应该继续履行。”此案并没有当庭宣判。

The defendant think,This year nine/A flood in October were listening to the school video lesson,The teacher also gives the corresponding reply and service."We think that the contract is still in continue to perform,And the plaintiff I also need the teacher's urge to perform well in school,So no matter from which in terms of the contract should continue to perform."The case is not convicted in court.