无锡国际商事法庭域外法适用典型案例（中英文版）（二）

目录

案例一查明并释明新加坡法，确认股权代持下的真实股东资格——吴培良与盛浩民、沈燕琴财产损害赔偿纠纷案

案例二适用香港判例裁判规则，界定“揭开公司面纱”适用范围——无锡雅仕维地铁传媒有限公司与牵趣进出口有限公司、上海牵趣网络科技有限公司广告合同纠纷案

案例三依职权查明澳大利亚法律，确定股东代表诉讼资格——梅山海与林小宁、陶锡松、陶锡峰、孙素萍损害公司利益责任纠纷案

案例四互联网核查印尼民法典，维护未到庭当事人合法权益——江苏脒诺甫纳米材料有限公司与PT.DRE RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL国际货物买卖合同纠纷案

案例五准确查明德国民事诉讼法，确认仲裁条款的效力——宜兴新威利成稀土有限公司与奥斯兰有限责任公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案

案例六能动查明澳门商法典，依法确认股东公司治理行为效力——尤爱梅与江苏环海重工有限公司、澳门求精贸易有限公司请求变更公司登记纠纷案

案例七识别多重法律关系，适用韩国商法解决先决问题——株式会社TiTi与天天公司、曺宇铉股东知情权纠纷案

案例八多维度查明伊朗民法规定，精准界定损害赔偿范围——贝沙赫尔工业公司（Behshahr Industrial Company）与江阴科玛金属制品有限公司国际破产债权确认纠纷案

案例九准确适用《纽约公约》，不予承认和执行“超裁”裁项——Bright Morning Limited与宜兴乐祺纺织集团有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决纠纷案

案例十优先适用《销售合同公约》，明确验货前无义务支付价款——三星STS株式会社与无锡鼎辰金属制品有限公司买卖合同纠纷案

案例四

互联网核查印尼民法典

维护未到庭当事人合法权益

——江苏脒诺甫纳米材料有限公司与PT.DRE RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL国际货物买卖合同纠纷案

01

基本案情

江苏脒诺甫纳米材料有限公司（以下简称脒诺甫公司）与PT.DRE RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL（以下简称DRI公司）签订锆英砂买卖合同一份，购买锆英砂，并约定了货物价格及付款方式等。合同签订后，脒诺甫公司支付给DRI公司174000美元，在DRI公司告知脒诺甫公司货物已经在货场后，脒诺甫公司又支付了174000美元，DRI公司却迟迟未交付任何货物，经脒诺甫公司多次催讨，DRI公司拒不交货。脒诺甫公司故诉至法院，请求解除上述买卖合同、DRI公司返还货款348000美元等。被告DRI公司经外交途径及公告送达，未到庭参加诉讼。

02

裁判结果

本案中，脒诺甫公司请求适用中华人民共和国法律进行审理。法院认为，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第四十一条规定的最密切联系原则，本案合同涉及标的物属于印度尼西亚境内的相关矿产，出卖方DRI公司的营业地及合同签订地均在印度尼西亚，故印度尼西亚为本案合同的最密切联系地，从而认定本案应当适用印尼的法律。经法院释明，脒诺甫公司通过联合国难民署网站（www.refworld.org）及德国玛丽·奥斯蒙德数据库（https://mayosmond.com）查找到了《印度尼西亚民法典》相关内容（英文版），请求适用其中第1267条和1480条并提供相应的中文翻译。法院依照其提供的查找方法复验查询内容，确认了《印度尼西亚民法典》的条款内容，完成了本案适用法律的查明，最终依据《印度尼西亚民法典》关于合同无效的规定，判决支持脒诺甫公司的诉讼请求。本案一审生效。

03

典型意义

涉外商事案件的审理中，缺席审理并不是直接适用本国法的理由，应当在对法律关系进行识别后，根据本国冲突规范确定应当适用的准据法。本案中，在境外被告未到庭的情况下，法院并未直接采纳原告脒诺甫公司要求适用中国法的主张，而是根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》的规定确定应适用的域外法，并对脒诺甫公司进行依法释明。法院在当事人查询的基础上以重复操作形式验证当事人提供的域外法内容的真实性，从而在被告缺席的情况下实现对域外法查明内容的认定。本案的域外法查明方式，解决了缺席审判中域外法无法质证的难题，极大提高了案件审判效率，从实体和程序上维护了当事人的合法权益。

案例五

准确查明德国民事诉讼法

确认仲裁条款的效力

——宜兴新威利成稀土有限公司与奥斯兰有限责任公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案

01

基本案情

宜兴新威利成稀土有限公司（以下简称新威利成公司）与奥斯兰有限责任公司（以下简称奥斯兰公司）签订《战略供应商协议》，达成稀土产品采购合作。该《战略供应商协议》第18条明确约定了仲裁条款：“18.1由本协议引起的或与本协议有关的所有争议，包括关于本协议的存续、有效性、解释或终止的任何问题，应当按照位于巴黎的国际商会之《国际商会仲裁规则》由三（3）名仲裁员根据上述仲裁规则最终裁决……18.3仲裁地为慕尼黑。对于仲裁规则没有规定的事项，应当适用仲裁地的程序法。”奥斯兰公司由此对新威利成公司的起诉提出异议，认为本案应提交仲裁解决，新威利成公司的起诉应予驳回。

02

裁判结果

法院认为：根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十八条规定，当事人可以协议选择仲裁协议适用的法律。当事人没有选择的，适用仲裁机构所在地法律或者仲裁地法律。本案中，双方当事人没有协议选择仲裁协议适用的法律，但约定了仲裁地在德国，故判断涉案仲裁条款的效力应适用德国法律。根据《德国民事诉讼法》第1029条及第1031条的规定，涉案仲裁条款已满足德国法律规定的仲裁协议成立的条件，且无其他证据证明其无效，故法院确认该仲裁条款效力，新威利成公司应当依据双方的仲裁协议向国际商会仲裁院申请在德国慕尼黑进行仲裁。据此，法院裁定驳回新威利成公司的起诉。本案一审生效。

03

典型意义

本案是无锡法院首次适用外国程序法的成功探索。根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十八条规定，在当事人未选择仲裁协议适用的法律的情况下，应适用仲裁机构所在地法律或者仲裁地法律。本案明确仲裁地在德国慕尼黑，需要依据德国法律判断仲裁条款效力。奥斯兰公司提供德国仲裁律师的法律意见及《德国民事诉讼法》的相关规定，法院以互联网查询检索形式复验有关《德国民事诉讼法》条款的内容，最终查明《德国民事诉讼法》关于仲裁协议的定义及生效条款，确认了涉案仲裁条款的效力。本案的审理充分体现了法院在主管管辖权审查上的审慎态度，表明了我国法院尊重、支持国际商事仲裁的裁判理念，也是外国法查明方式的积极实践。

案例六

能动查明澳门商法典

依法确认股东公司治理行为效力

——尤爱梅与江苏环海重工有限公司、第三人澳门求精贸易有限公司请求变更公司登记纠纷案

01

基本案情

求精公司为澳门特别行政区企业，该公司股东为段哲与毕术秀，两者系夫妻关系。环海公司是求精公司全资设立的外商投资企业，其章程规定董事长为公司法定代表人。2016年12月22日，求精公司委派尤爱梅为环海公司法定代表人，2020年5月13日，毕术秀出具股东决定，免去尤爱梅法定代表人职务，改为委派毕术秀担任该职。2020年5月19日，段哲出具股东决定，继续委派尤爱梅担任环海公司法定代表人，并向毕术秀寄发告知函，表示不同意此前毕术秀的股东决定。2020年8月19日，经市场监管部门核准，环海公司的法定代表人变更为毕术秀，该变更登记行为经过行政复议得以维持。尤爱梅认为，毕术秀出具的股东决定属于行政机关管理成员无权作出的行为，因此该行为不对求精公司产生效力，故起诉至法院，请求环海公司协助其办理变更登记手续，将环海公司的法定代表人、董事长由毕术秀变更为尤爱梅。

02

裁判结果

法院认为，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》及相应司法解释的规定，本案涉及公司内部管理人员以公司名义对外实施的行为能否认定为公司行为的法律问题，应当适用公司登记地法律。求精公司为登记设立在澳门特别行政区的企业，故本案应当适用澳门特别行政区法律。根据《澳门商法典》的规定和求精公司的内部章程性规定，求精公司行政管理机关成员可代表公司的意志，有权代表签署所有代表求精公司行为、合约等重要文件，即有权在环海公司经营管理中代表求精公司行使内地法律和公司章程规定的股东权利，包括委派环海公司的法定代表人；从公司以往的治理惯例来看，在环海公司的经营过程中，毕术秀一直代表求精公司签署包括环海公司经营范围变更、章程修订及向环海公司委派法定代表人的相关股东决定，而段哲在本案纠纷发生之前从未作出类似股东决定，可以认定在二人矛盾激化之前，双方已经就环海公司股东代表方面作出安排，即由毕术秀代表求精公司行使股东权利。故2020年5月13日毕术秀出具的股东决定具有法律效力，因此法院一审驳回了尤爱梅的诉讼请求，尤爱梅未提起上诉，本案一审生效。

03

典型意义

公司内部治理导致的纠纷长久以来一直是公司类案件发生的主要原因，特别是本案求精公司这种“夫妻店”性质的企业，企业的经营决策、公司的对外表意行为极有可能受到作为公司股东及管理者的夫妻之间关系的影响。在“法人权利义务适用登记地法律”这一基本原则之下，只有充分查明公司登记地的法律，并结合公司章程、经营历史、治理惯例等事实，才可能作出正确的裁判。本案依据《澳门商法典》对公司行政管理机关成员权限进行界定，结合公司章程及既往公司治理历史综合认定毕术秀出具的股东决定的法律效力，充分体现了司法在介入公司内部治理问题时能动作为查明法律、保持谦抑尊重自治的原则，是无锡法院积极推进域外法查明和适用的生动实践，是内地与澳门司法规则衔接的精彩展示。

英文版

Contents

Case IIdentifying and clarifying Singaporean law, confirming the real shareholder status under equity trusteeship.——Wu Peiliang vs. Sheng Haomin, Shen Yanqin the Property Damage Compensation Dispute

Case IIApplying Hong Kong Precedents to clarify the boundary of “Piercing the corporate veil”.——Wuxi Yaswei Metro Media Co., Ltd. vs. Qianqu Import & Export Co., Ltd., Shanghai Qianqu Network Technology Co., Ltd. Advertising Contract Dispute

Case IIIThe Judge ascertains the Australian law ex officio and determines the qualification for shareholder representative litigation——Mei Shanhai vs. Lin Xiaoning, Tao Xisong, Tao Xi Feng, and Sun Suping the Dispute over Liability for Damages to Company Interests

Case IVVerifying the Indonesian Civil Code online, Vindicating the interest of the default party——Jiangsu Minonop Nano Material Co., Ltd. vs. PT. DRE Resource International the International Sale of Goods Contract Dispute

Case VAccurately ascertain the German Civil Procedure Law and confirm the validity of the arbitration clause——Yixing New Will Reach Rare Earth Co., Ltd. vs. OSRAM GMBH the International Sale of Goods Contract Dispute

Case VIProactively ascertain the Macau Commercial Code to confirm the effectiveness of shareholders' corporate governance actions——You Aimei vs. Jiangsu Huanhai Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. and the third party Macau Qiujing Trading Co., Ltd. Request to Change Company Registration Dispute

Case VIIIdentifying complex legal relationships and applying Korean Commercial Law to resolve preliminary issues——TiTi Corporation vs. Tiantian Company, Cho Woo-hyun, the Shareholder Right to Information Dispute

Case VIIIAccurately ascertain Iranian civil law in multi-dimension and define the scope of damage compensation——Behshahr Industrial Company vs. Jiangyin Komar Metal Products Co., Ltd. The Confirmation of International Bankruptcy Claims Dispute

Case IXAccurately apply the New York Convention, and reject to recognize or enforce 'excessive' arbitration awards——Bright Morning Limited vs. Yixing Leqi Textile Group Co., Ltd. Applying for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award Dispute

Case XPriority Application of the CISG, Clarifying the Absence of Payment Obligation before Inspection of Goods——International Sale of Goods Contract between Samsung STS Corporation and Wuxi Dingchen Metal Products Co., Ltd

Case IV

Verifying the Indonesian Civil Code online, Vindicating the interest of the default party.

——Jiangsu Minonop Nano Material Co., Ltd. vs. PT. DRE Resource International the International Sale of Goods Contract Dispute

01

Basic Facts

Jiangsu Minonop Nano Material Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Minonop") entered into a contract with PT. DRE Resource International (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") for the purchase of zircon sand, agreeing on the price of the goods and payment methods, etc. After signing the contract, Minonop paid DRI $174,000. Following DRI's notification that the goods were at the warehouse, Minonop made an additional payment of $174,000. However, DRI didn’t deliver any goods despite Minonop's repeated demands. Consequently, Minonop filed a lawsuit in court, seeking to dissolve the sales contract and requesting DRI to return the payment of $348,000, etc. DRI did not appear in court after being served through diplomatic methods and public announcement.

02

Court Ruling

In this case, Minonop requested to apply the laws of the People's Republic of China. The Court held that, according to the doctrine of the most significant relationship stipulated in Article 41 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, the subject matter of the contract, which involved minerals, was locatedwithin the territory of Indonesia, and the business premises and contract signing place of the seller DRI were both in Indonesia. Therefore, Indonesian law should be applied. After the court's clarification, Minonop found the "Indonesian Civil Code" (in English) through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees website (www.refworld.org) and the German Marie Osmond database (https://mayosmond.com), requesting the application of Articles 1267 and 1480, and provided the corresponding Chinese translations. The court verified the content of the "Indonesian Civil Code" using the search method provided by Minonop, confirmed the provisions of the code, and completed the identification of the applicable law for the case. Ultimately, based on the provisions of the "Indonesian Civil Code" regarding the invalidity of contracts, the court ruled in favor of Minonop's claims. The judgment became final in the first instance.

03

Typical Significance

In the trial of foreign-related commercial cases, the absence of a party does not justify the direct application of domestic law. Instead, the applicable law should be determined by the lex fori. In this case, despite the absence of the overseas defendant, the court did not directly adopt Minonop's request to apply Chinese law. Instead, it determined the foreign law to be applied according to the provisions of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations and clarified this to Minonop according to the law. The court verified the authenticity of the foreign law provided by the party based on the search, thus recognizing the content of the foreign law in the absence of the defendant. The method of ascertaining foreign law in this case solved the difficulty of questioning the foreign law in absent trials, greatly improved the efficiency of trials and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the parties both substantively and procedurally.

Case V

Accurately ascertain the German Civil Procedure Law and confirm the validity of the arbitration clause.

——Yixing New Will Reach Rare Earth Co., Ltd. vs. OSRAM GMBH International Sale of Goods Contract Dispute

01

Basic Facts

Yixing New Will Reach Rare Earth Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "New Will Reach Company") and OSRAM GMBH (hereinafter referred to as "OSRAM") signed a "Strategic Supplier Agreement,"reaching cooperation on the procurement of rare earth products. Article 18 of the "Strategic Supplier Agreement" clearly stipulates the arbitration clause: "18.1 All disputes arising from or related to this agreement, including any issues regarding the existence, validity, interpretation, or termination of this agreement, shall be finally settled by three (3) arbitrators according to the 'International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules' of the International Chamber of Commerce located in Paris... 18.3 The place of arbitration is Munich. For matters not provided for in the arbitration rules, the procedural law of the place of arbitration shall apply." Based on this, OSRAM objected to the lawsuit filed by New Will Reach Company, arguing that the case should be submitted to arbitration and that the lawsuit filed by New Will Reach Company should be dismissed.

02

Court Ruling

The Court held that, according to the provisions of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, parties may agree to choose the law applicable to the arbitration agreement.If the parties have not chosen, the law of the seat of the arbitral institution or the law of the place of arbitration applies. In this case, the parties did not agree to choose the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, but it was stipulated that the seat of arbitration is in Germany. Therefore, the effectiveness of the arbitration clause involved should be governed by German law. According to Articles 1029 and 1031 of the "German Code of Civil Procedure," the arbitration clause involved is effective, and there is no other evidence proving its invalidity; thus, the court confirmed the effectiveness of the arbitration clause. New Will Reach Company should file to the International Chamber of Commerce for arbitration in Munich, Germany, according to the arbitration agreement. Therefore, the court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit filed by New Will Reach Company. The case entered into force at first instance.

03

Typical Significance

This case is the first successful exploration by the court in applying foreign procedural law. According to Article 18 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations,If the parties have not chosen, the law of the seat of the arbitral institution or the law of the place of arbitration applies. This case clearly identified the seat of arbitration in Munich, Germany, requiring the judgement of the effectiveness of the arbitration clause based on German law. OSRAM provided legal opinions from German arbitration lawyers and relevant provisions of the "German Code of Civil Procedure." The court verified the content of the relevant provisions of the "German Code of Civil Procedure" through the Internet and ultimately ascertained the definition and effective provisions of the arbitration agreement in the "German Code of Civil Procedure," confirming the effectiveness of the arbitration clause involved. This trial reflects the cautious attitude of the court in the review of jurisdictional authority, demonstrates the Chinese courts' respect and support for international commercial arbitration, and is also a positive practice in the method of ascertaining foreign law. The judgment of this case was selected as one of the Foreign-related Typical Cases (2018-2021) issued by The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province.

Case VI

Proactively ascertain the Macau Commercial Code to confirm the effectiveness of shareholders' corporate governance actions.

——You Aimei vs. Jiangsu Huanhai Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. and the third party Macau Qiujing Trading Co., Ltd. Request to Change Company Registration Dispute

01

Basic Facts

Qiujing Company, a business entity registered in the Macau Special Administrative Region, has shareholders Duan Zhe and Bi Shuxiu, who are married. Huanhai Company, a wholly foreign-owned enterprise established by Qiujing Company, has its articles of association stating that the chairman is the legal representative of the company. On December 22, 2016, Qiujing Company appointed You Aimei as the legal representative of Huanhai Company. On May 13, 2020, Bi Shuxiu issued a shareholder resolution to relieve You Aimei of her duties as the legal representative, appointing Bi Shuxiu instead. On May 19, 2020, Duan Zhe issued a shareholder resolution continuing to appoint You Aimei as the legal representative of Huanhai Company and sent a notification letter to Bi Shuxiu, expressing disagreement with Bi Shuxiu's previous shareholder decision. On August 19, 2020, with the approval of the Market Supervision Department, the legal representative of Huanhai Company was officially changed to Bi Shuxiu, and this change was upheld after an administrative appeal. You Aimei believed that the shareholder resolution issued by Bi Shuxiu was an unauthorized act by the administrative management members and thus had no effect on Qiujing Company; hence, she filed a lawsuit in court, requesting Huanhai Company to assist her in handling the change registration procedures to revert the position of the legal representative and chairman from Bi Shuxiu back to You Aimei.

02

Court Ruling

The Court held that, according to the provisions of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations and corresponding judicial interpretations, the legal issue involved in this case is whether the actions taken by the internal management personnel on behalf of the company can be recognized as the company's acts, which should be governed by the law of the place where the company is registered. Since Qiujing Company is registered in the Macau Special Administrative Region, the laws of the Macau Special Administrative Region should be applied. According to the provisions of the "Macau Commercial Code" and the association of Qiujing Company, the members of Qiujing Company's administrative department have the authority to represent the will of the company and sign all important documents on behalf of Qiujing Company, including representing shareholder rights in the management of Huanhai Company as stipulated by mainland laws and the company's articles of association, such as appointing the legal representative of Huanhai Company. According to the past practices of the company, Bi Shuxiu has always represented Qiujing Company in signing shareholder resolutions related to changes in Huanhai Company's scope of operations, amendments to the articles of association, and the appointment of the legal representative of Huanhai Company. Duan Zhe had never made similar shareholder resolutions before the dispute arose in this case. It can be determined that before the intensification of the conflicts, arrangements had already been made regarding the representation of shareholders in Huanhai Company, namely, that Bi Shuxiu would exercise shareholder rights on behalf of Qiujing Company. Therefore, the shareholder resolution issued by Bi Shuxiu on May 13, 2020, had legally effected. The court thus dismissed You Aimei's claims in first instance, and You Aimei did not appeal, making the judgment in force.

03

Typical Significance

Disputes arising from internal corporate governance have long been a major cause of corporation cases, especially in companies like Qiujing Company, which operates as a "spouse-owned business", where business decisions and external representations of the company are likely influenced by the marital relationship of the shareholders and managers. Under the basic principle that "the rights and obligations of legal entities are governed by the laws of the place of registration", a correct judgment can only be made by thoroughly examining the laws of the place of registration in conjunction with the company's articles of association, business history, and management practices. This case defined the authority of the members of the company's administrative management organ based on the "Macau Commercial Code," and combined with the company's articles of association and past governance history, comprehensively determined the legal effect of the shareholder resolution issued by Bi Shuxiu. It fully reflects the proactive role of the judiciary in clarifying the law and maintaining restraint and respect for autonomy when intervening in internal corporate governance issues. It is a vivid practice of the Wuxi court's active promotion of the ascertainment and application of foreign law, and it is an excellent demonstration of the integration of judicial rules between the Mainland and Macau.

来源：无锡国商法庭

编辑：赵伟

审核：李思红

BREAK AWAY