无锡国际商事法庭域外法适用典型案例（中英文版）（三）

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

01

基本案情

株式会社TiTi系在韩国登记设立的公司，法定代表人为曺祥铉，其与本案被告之一曺宇铉系兄弟关系。2002年，株式会社TiTi在江苏省无锡市设立天天公司，并持有天天公司全部股权。从2018年4月起，株式会社TiTi通过派员上门、邮寄律师函、发送通知等方式要求行使股东知情权，均遭到天天公司拒绝。株式会社TiTi起诉，请求天天公司提供自2006年8月1日起的全部董事会会议决议、股东会会议记录、财务会计报告、公司会计账簿及原始凭证以供查阅、复制。天天公司辩称，曺祥铉非株式会社TiTi的法定代表人，确认曺祥铉为社长的株式会社TiTi董事会决议无效。

02

裁判结果

法院一审认为，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十四条规定，曺祥铉是否有权代表株式会社TiTi提起本案诉讼应适用该公司登记地法律，即韩国法律。韩国商法第389条规定，公司应以董事会的决议选任代表公司的董事。根据株式会社TiTi章程第30条规定，社长是根据董事会的决定，从董事中选任；社长代表本公司。株式会社TiTi的商业登记证载明曺祥铉为代表人，2018年4月17日株式会社TiTi董事会出席人员符合章程规定，董事会决议有效。因此，曺祥铉有权代表株式会社TiTi提起本案诉讼。根据《中华人民共和国公司法》规定，株式会社TiTi行使股东知情权合法有据，判决天天公司提供全部董事会会议决议、股东会会议记录、财务会计报告供株式会社TiTi查阅、复制；提供会计账簿及原始凭证供株式会社TiTi查阅。天天公司不服，提起上诉。江苏省高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

03

典型意义

本案系股东知情权诉讼，存在股东身份确认、知情权范围等多重法律关系，需要分别确定准据法，并适用不同国家的法律。首先要解决株式会社TiTi提起诉讼的代表权问题。因株式会社TiTi是在韩国登记设立的公司，株式会社TiTi的代表权问题应适用韩国法律，根据韩国法律审查相关董事会决议的效力。股东知情权的行使对象天天公司系在中国设立，知情权范围应适用中国法律。本案法律关系定性准确、条理清晰，外国法查明准确，说理详实规范，裁判结果妥当，可为审理同类案件提供借鉴。该案入选江苏省高级人民法院发布的《江苏法院涉外商事海事审判典型案例（2022年）》。

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

01

基本案情

原告贝沙赫尔工业公司（Behshahr Industrial Company）（以下简称BIC公司）与被告江阴科玛金属制品有限公司（以下简称科玛公司）签署《供货协议》，约定由BIC公司作为买方向科玛公司购买马口铁。《供货协议》对延期交货违约金、损害赔偿责任进行约定，并约定本协议受伊朗法律管辖。后BIC公司向科玛公司订购2单货物，科玛公司收款后未能如期足额发货。科玛公司在本案诉讼前经法院裁定受理破产申请，BIC公司向科玛公司管理人申报债权，但管理人仅对其中部分金额予以确认。BIC公司遂起诉科玛公司，要求法院确认其对未被管理人确认的包含违约金、汇率损失、可得利润损失、资金利息损失、律师费、差旅费、邮费等在内的损失金额享有破产债权。科玛公司管理人抗辩认为，本案应适用中华人民共和国法律进行审理。涉案《供货协议》中有仲裁条款，约定仲裁适用英格兰法律，又约定受伊朗法律管辖，故《供货协议》本身对法律适用存在约定不明的情形；BIC公司放弃仲裁条款并在我国起诉行为应视为其放弃了《供货协议》的仲裁条款及法律适用约定，故本案应适用破产企业所在地法律即中国法律进行审理。BIC公司主张的各项损失均为间接损失，即使法院认定，其性质也应为劣后债权 。

02

裁判结果

法院认为，关于本案的主管问题，因双方均在庭审中明确放弃仲裁条款，故本院对本案享有管辖权。本案存在多重法律关系，应当分别确定适用的法律。对BIC公司债权金额，在《供货协议》已明确规定协议的履行应当受伊朗法管辖的情况下，应适用伊朗法律进行审理；关于债权性质的认定，应根据冲突规范的一般规则“破产债权的法律适用一般适用破产宣告地法”而适用中华人民共和国法律审理。本案中，BIC公司提供了联合国难民事务高级专员公署网站查明的《伊朗民法典》《伊朗民事诉讼法》及伊朗律师事务所出具的法律意见书，法院当庭登录联合国难民事务高级专员难民署网站查询比对BIC公司提交的《伊朗民法典》相应条款；同时，针对本案汇率损失产生原因问题，BIC公司提供商务部国际贸易经济合作研究院等发布的《对外投资合作国别（地区）指南伊朗（2021年版）》予以佐证，法院依据该投资指南中所附网站www.sanarate.ir查询伊朗里亚尔与相应货币的汇率。最终，法院根据《伊朗民法典》法条内容与法律意见书的交叉验证，确认伊朗法律规定下可追偿损害的类别及损害构成要件应为直接损失及确定损失，从而确认了BIC公司关于违约金、汇率损失、律师费及翻译费的主张为其损失，并根据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》将其确认为破产债权。判决作出后，双方均未上诉，本案一审生效。

03

典型意义

本案法律关系复杂，如何查明伊朗法、准确界定损失的金额是本案审理的首要及最关键环节。针对当事人提供的《伊朗民法典》条款，法院以互联网查证形式复验其真实性，并对翻译中的不够规范用语进行调整；对BIC公司主张的核心内容汇率损失，法院以我国商务部发布的投资指南佐证汇率损失成因，适用《伊朗民法典》定性汇率损失为直接损失而非罚款；查证汇率网站确认汇率变动情况，最终确定BIC公司的汇率损失数额。本案的域外法查明过程在途径、方式、复验等方面均有较多创新，有效保护了债权人利益，为同类案件的审理提供了有益借鉴。

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

01

基本案情

2005年12月26日，宜兴乐祺纺织集团有限公司（以下简称乐祺集团公司）与Bright Morning Limited（以下简称BM公司）签订《斜纹布合资合同》，合资设立宜兴新乐祺纺织印染有限公司（以下简称新乐祺公司）。2011年11月14日，BM公司针对乐祺集团公司就《斜纹布合资合同》下的争议提交新加坡国际仲裁中心仲裁，请求仲裁庭裁决乐祺集团公司向BM公司支付金钱损害赔偿并禁止乐祺集团公司采取任何违反合同的进一步行动等。2015年8月26日，新加坡国际仲裁中心作出最终裁决，裁决内容包括“（1）乐祺集团公司违反了《斜纹布合资合同》；（2）受下文第（4）分段的限制，斜纹布合资合同终止；（3）乐祺集团公司应向BM公司支付3480万美元，作为其违反《斜纹布合资合同》的损害赔偿金；（4）在本裁决作出之日起的14日内，乐祺集团公司应向BM公司支付损害赔偿金3840万美元。当乐祺集团公司全数支付前述金钱损害赔偿，及有书面确认该赔偿已汇入BM公司指定的位于中国以外（除香港外）的银行后，《斜纹布合资合同》应立即终止”及其他内容。BM公司申请执行该仲裁裁决，乐祺集团公司称裁决（1）-（4）的事项均超出双方当事人仲裁条款的范围，申请不予承认与执行。

02

裁判结果

经层报最高人民法院，法院作出民事裁定，承认和执行新加坡国际仲裁中心2011年第130号仲裁裁决第（1）、（3）、（5）、（6）项，不予承认和执行第（2）、（4）项。无锡市中级人民法院认为最终裁决第（2）、（4）项具有《联合国承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（即《纽约公约》）第五条第一款（丙）项规定的情形，而不能被承认和执行。理由是：首先，股东权利是基于公司法律制度而产生的法定权利，并非约定权利。仲裁庭解决的争议仅限于合资双方围绕合资合同发生的争议，而非能将其管辖延伸至合资公司本身。其次，BM公司与乐祺公司在仲裁中均未提出有关BM公司在合资公司的股权问题。仲裁庭为平衡双方利益，避免BM公司获取所谓“双倍赔偿”，主动干预BM公司在斜纹布合资公司的股东权利，作出裁决第（4）项既超出双方交付仲裁的争议范围，也超出了双方交付仲裁决定的事项范围。因第（2）项与第（4）项裁决内容具有关联性，应当一并不予执行。

03

典型意义

该案的审理体现了无锡法院支持和监督国际商事仲裁并重的审判思路。在最高法院以“有利于执行”理念履行公约义务的司法政策指引下，法院对《纽约公约》第五条规定的拒绝承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的七项情形多持严格审查态度，不轻易拒绝承认和执行。本案中，国际仲裁庭因其对中国法律的不同理解，将当事人提交仲裁的违约责任问题与股东权利一并考量，做出一方付出巨额金钱赔偿、另一方强制让渡股东权利的裁决。该裁决得到了法院的部分承认和执行，对主动干预被申请人在合资公司的股东权利而做出的两项裁决，认定“超裁”而拒绝承认和执行。本案体现了中国法院不认同仲裁机构的管辖扩张主义，同时对超裁事项的可分性及公共政策例外原则持审慎态度，力争在有利于外国仲裁裁决执行与严守仲裁司法审查标准之间达到平衡。

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

01

基本案情

原告三星STS株式会社（以下简称三星株式会社）与被告无锡鼎辰金属制品有限公司（以下简称鼎辰公司）进行了不锈钢带买卖交易，但鼎辰公司所发货物不符合约定；后双方经友好协商于2017年2月23日签订了和解协议书，三星株式会社已如期处理完不合格货物并书面告知鼎辰公司，但鼎辰公司未履行和解协议，故三星株式会社诉至法院，要求鼎辰公司返还货款等。鼎辰公司抗辩称根据和解协议的约定，鼎辰公司承担的是补货义务，且发货前提是在三星株式会社验收合格，在其同意的情况下鼎辰公司才能发货，至今三星株式会社没有做出验收合格的结论，所以鼎辰公司的发货前提条件尚未成就，请求法院驳回三星株式会社的诉请。

02

裁判结果

法院认为，涉案合同系营业地在不同国家的当事人之间订立的货物销售合同，中国、韩国均系《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（以下简称《销售合同公约》）缔约国，且双方当事人不排除适用该公约，故本案适用《销售合同公约》进行审理。根据《销售合同公约》第五十八条第三款的规定，买方在未有机会检验货物前，无义务支付价款，除非这种机会与双方当事人议定的交货或支付程序相抵触。双方在和解协议书中约定的履行顺序是三星株式会社先验货、付款，款项付清后鼎辰公司再交货，则在三星株式会社未能进行验收的情况下，其即无义务支付价款。至于三星株式会社未能验收的原因，法院认为，货物验收对于买卖双方当事人而言，既是权利也是义务。鼎辰公司关于三星株式会社拒不验收的抗辩无证据证明，法院不予采信，故法院支持了三星株式会社关于返还货款及支付利息的诉讼请求。本案一审生效。

03

裁判结果

本案在准确界定涉案合同关系的基础上，优先适用国际条约，在司法中体现了“切实履行国际义务”的现代国际法基本准则。通过对《销售合同公约》的相关条款进行了分析和适用，并主要依据第五十八条“未有机会验货前无义务支付价款”这一规定，法院作出了对外方有利的认定，根据《销售合同公约》第七十四条“可预见规则”、第八十四条第一款的利息规定，支持了三星株式会社关于返还货款及支付利息的诉讼请求。本案的审理，适用了《销售合同公约》的细节规定，对于类似国际货物买卖合同纠纷中履行义务先后顺序的判断，具有示范意义。

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 VII

Identifying 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

01

Basic Facts

TiTi Corporation is a company registered in South Korea, with Cho Sang-hyun as its legal representative. Cho Woo-hyun, one of the defendants in this case, is the brother of Cho Sang-hyun. In 2002, TiTi Corporation established the Tiantian Company in Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, and held all of its shares. Since April 2018, TiTi Corporation has demanded to exercise the shareholder's right by personal delivery, sending demand letters or notifications, but all were rejected by Tiantian Company. TiTi Corporation filed a lawsuit demanding that Tiantian Company provide all board of directors' meeting resolutions, shareholders' meeting minutes, financial statements, company accounting books, and original vouchers from August 1, 2006, for inspection and copying. Tiantian Company argued that Cho Sang-hyun was not the legal representative of TiTi Corporation, and that the board resolution confirming Cho Sang-hyun as the president of TiTi Corporation was invalid.

02

Court Ruling

The Court held that, according to Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, whether Cho Sang-hyun has the right to file this lawsuit on behalf of TiTi Corporation should be governed by lex domicilii, namely South Korean law where the company is registered. According to Article 389 of the South Korean Commercial Law, a company shall appoint directors to represent the company by resolution of the board of directors. According to Article 30 of the TiTi Corporation's articles of association, the president is appointed from all the directors based on the decision of the board; the president represents the company. The business registration certificate of TiTi Corporation lists Cho Sang-hyun as the representative, and the attendees of the board meeting on April 17, 2018, complied with the provisions of the articles of association, making the board resolution valid. Therefore, Cho Sang-hyun has the right to file the lawsuit on behalf of TiTi Corporation. According to the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, TiTi Corporation's exercise of the shareholder's right to know is legal and well-founded. The court ordered Tiantian Company to provide all board of directors' meeting resolutions, shareholders' meeting records, and financial statements for TiTi Corporation to inspect and copy, and to allow the inspection of accounting books and original vouchers. Tiantian Company appealed. The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

03

Typical Significance

This case is about the shareholder’s right of inspection involving multiple legal relationships such as confirmation of shareholder status and the scope of the right to information, requiring the determination of applicable law for each issue and the application of laws from different countries. The primary issue to be resolved is the representative authority of TiTi Corporation to file the lawsuit. Since TiTi Corporation is registered in South Korea, the issue of its representative authority should be governed by South Korean law, and the validity of the relevant board resolutions should be examined according to South Korean law. As Tiantian Company, the object of the exercise of the shareholder's right to information is established in China, the scope of the shareholder's right to information should be governed by Chinese law. The case has been accurately characterized with clear logic, precise ascertainment of foreign law, detailed and standard reasoning, and an appropriate judgment result, which can serve as a reference for adjudicating similar cases. The judgment of this case was selected as one of the Foreign-related Typical Cases (2022) issued by The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province.

Case VIII

Accurately 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

01

Basic Facts

The plaintiff, Behshahr Industrial Company (hereinafter referred to as BIC), signed a "Supply Agreement" with the defendant, Jiangyin Komar Metal Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Komar), agreeing that BIC would purchase tinplate from Komar. The "Supply Agreement" stipulated provisions for late delivery penalties, liability for damages, and stated that the agreement was governed by Iranian law. Subsequently, BIC ordered two batches of goods from Komar, but after receiving payment, Komar failed to deliver the goods in full and on time. Before the litigation in this case, the court had ruled to accept Komar's bankruptcy application, and BIC declared its claim of damages to the bankruptcy administrator of Komar, but the administrator only confirmed part of the amounts. BIC then sued Komar, asking the court to confirm its claim for the damages not recognized by the administrator, including penalties for delayed delivery, exchange rate losses, profit loss, interest on funds, attorney fees, travel expenses, postage, etc. The bankruptcy administrator of Komar argued that the case should be tried under the laws of the People's Republic of China. The "Supply Agreement" involved contained an arbitration clause, stipulating that arbitration would apply English law, while also stating it was governed by Iranian law; therefore, the "Supply Agreement" itself had ambiguous provisions regarding the applicable law. BIC's act of giving up the arbitration clause and suing in the Chinese court should be regarded as its waiver of the arbitration clause and the legal application provisions of the "Supply Agreement", so the case should be tried under the laws of China, where the bankrupt enterprise is located. All the losses claimed by BIC are indirect losses, and even if the court recognized so, their nature should be considered as inferior claims.

02

Court Ruling

The Court held that, regarding the jurisdiction over this case, since both parties explicitly waived the arbitration clause during the trial, the court had jurisdiction over this case. There are multiple legal relationships in this case, and the applicable laws should be determined separately. Regarding the amount of BIC's creditor's rights, under the condition that the "Supply Agreement" clearly stipulates that the performance of the agreement should be governed by Iranian law, Iranian law should be applied for the trial; as for the determination of the nature of the creditor's rights, it should be in accordance with the general rule of conflict norms "the law applicable to bankruptcy creditors' rights generally applies the law of the place where bankruptcy is declared," and thus the law of the People's Republic of China should be applied for the trial. In this case, BIC provided the "Iranian Civil Code" and "Iranian Civil Procedure Law" identified on the website of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as a legal opinion issued by an Iranian law firm. The court logged onto the website of the UNHCR in court to verify the relevant provisions of the "Iranian Civil Code" submitted by BIC; at the same time, regarding the issue of the cause of exchange rate loss in this case, BIC provided the "Country (Region) Guide for Foreign Investment Cooperation - Iran (2021 Edition)" published by the Ministry of Commerce's Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation for evidence. The court verified the exchange rate between the Iranian rial and the corresponding currency based on the website www.sanarate.ir attached to the investment guide. Finally, after cross-verification of the contents of the Iranian Civil Code and the legal opinion, the court confirmed that under Iranian law, the types of damages that can be recovered and the elements of damage should be direct loss and certain loss, thereby confirming BIC's claims for liquidated damages, exchange rate losses, attorney fees, and translation fees as its losses, and according to the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China, they were recognized as bankruptcy creditor's rights. Neither party appealed, and the first-instance judgment took effect.

03

Typical Significance

The legal relationships in this case are complex. How to identify Iranian law and accurately define the amounts of damages are the primary and most critical aspects of the trial. In response to the provisions of the "Iranian Civil Code" provided by BIC, the court verified their authenticity through Internet research and adjusted any non-standard terminology in the translations. Regarding the core claim of BIC, which is the exchange rate loss, the court corroborated the cause of the exchange rate loss with the investment guide issued by our Ministry of Commerce, applying the "Iranian Civil Code" to characterize the exchange rate loss as a direct loss rather than a penalty. The court confirmed the exchange rate fluctuations by verifying the exchange rate website, ultimately determining the amount of BIC's exchange rate loss. There are many innovations in the process of ascertaining foreign law in this case in terms of approach and verification, which has effectively protected the interests of the creditor and provided valuable references for the trial of similar cases.

Case IX

Accurately 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

01

Basic Facts

On December 26, 2005, Yixing Leqi Textile Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Leqi Group) and Bright Morning Limited (hereinafter referred to as BM Company) signed a 'Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract' to establish the Yixing Xinleqi Textile and Dyeing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinleqi Company). On November 14, 2011, BM Company initiated arbitration against Leqi Group at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) regarding disputes under the 'Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract', seeking a ruling that Leqi Group pay monetary damages to BM Company and prohibit Leqi Group from taking any further actions in breach of the contract. On August 26, 2015, SIAC issued a final award which included: (1) Leqi Group had breached the 'Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract'; (2) subject to the limitations of sub-paragraph (4), the Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract was terminated; (3) Leqi Group should pay BM Company $34.8 million as damages for breach of the 'Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract'; (4) within 14 days from the date of the award, Leqi Group should pay BM Company $38.4 million in damages. Upon full payment of the said damages by Leqi Group, and upon written confirmation that such compensation has been transferred to a bank designated by BM Company outside of China (excluding Hong Kong), the 'Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract' shall be immediately terminated," among other contents. BM Company applied for enforcement of the arbitral award, while Leqi Group claimed that matters (1) to (4) of the award exceeded the scope of the arbitration clause agreed upon by both parties and applied for non-recognition and non-enforcement.

02

Court Ruling

After being reported up to the Supreme People's Court of People's Republic of China, The Court made a civil ruling recognizing and enforcing items (1), (3), (5), and (6) of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre's 2011 No. 130 arbitral award, and rejecting to recognize or enforce items (2) and (4). The Court held that items (2) and (4) of the final award fell under the circumstances provided by Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention(i.e. the United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards), which precluded their recognition and enforcement. The reasons were: Firstly, shareholder rights are statutory rights arising from the company’s legal system, not contractual rights. The dispute resolved by the arbitral tribunal was limited to the issues arising from the joint venture contract between the two parties, and the tribunal could not extend its jurisdiction to the joint venture company itself. Secondly, during the arbitration, neither BM Company nor Leqi Company raised any issues regarding BM Company's equity in the joint venture. To balance the interests of both parties and prevent BM Company from obtaining so-called 'double compensation', the arbitral tribunal intervened on its own in BM Company's shareholder rights in the twill fabric joint venture company. Item (4) of the award exceeded both the scope of the dispute submitted to arbitration and the matters decided upon by the submission to arbitration. Since items (2) and (4) of the award were interrelated, they should be rejected together.

03

Typical Significance

This case reflects the Wuxi court's balancing attitude toward international commercial arbitration , which is both supportive and supervisory. Guided by the Supreme Court's judicial policy to fulfill Convention obligations with a 'pro-enforcement' philosophy, the court adopts a strict scrutiny attitude towards the seven circumstances provided in Article V of the New York Convention that may lead to the refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and does not readily deny recognition or enforcement. In this case, due to the international arbitral tribunal's different interpretation of Chinese law, it considered both the issue of breach of contract submitted by the parties for arbitration and shareholder rights together, resulting in an award that required one party to pay substantial monetary compensation and the other party to be forced to relinquish shareholder rights. The award was partially recognized and enforced by the court, but the two items that involved the arbitral tribunal's proactive intervention into the respondent's shareholder rights in the joint venture company were deemed 'excessive' and thus not recognized or enforced. This case demonstrates that the Chinese courts do not agree with the arbitral institution's expansionism in jurisdiction, while also maintaining a cautious stance on the divisibility of excessive awards and the public policy exception principle, striving to strike a balance between being conducive to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and strictly adhering to judicial review standards of arbitration.

Case X

Priority 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

01

Basic Facts

The plaintiff, Samsung STS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Samsung Co., Ltd.'), engaged in a stainless steel strip trading transaction with the defendant, Wuxi Dingchen Metal Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Dingchen Company'), but the goods shipped by Dingchen Company did not meet the agreed specifications. Subsequently, after friendly negotiations, both parties signed a settlement agreement on February 23, 2017. Samsung Co., Ltd. had duly processed the non-conforming goods and informed Dingchen Company in writing, but Dingchen Company failed to fulfill the settlement agreement. Therefore, Samsung Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that Dingchen Company return the payment for the goods, etc. Dingchen Company defended itself by stating that according to the settlement agreement, Dingchen Company's obligation was to replace the goods, and the premise of delivery was that Samsung Co., Ltd. had accepted the goods as qualified, and only with its consent could Dingchen Company ship the goods. However, Samsung Co., Ltd. did not complete the acceptance, so Dingcheng company's prerequisites for shipment have not yet been accomplished, and asked the court to reject Samsung's claim.

02

Court Ruling

The Court held that the contract in question was a goods sales contract concluded between parties with business locations in different countries, and both China and South Korea are signatories to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter referred to as 'CISG'), with neither party excluding the application of the convention. Therefore, the case was adjudicated under the CISG. According to Article 58(3) of the CISG, the buyer is not obliged to pay the price before having had an opportunity to inspect the goods, unless the circumstances described in the article are inconsistent with the agreed delivery or payment procedures between the parties. The settlement agreement stipulated that Samsung Co., Ltd. should inspect the goods and make payment first, followed by Dingchen Company's delivery after receipt of full payment. Therefore, if Samsung Co., Ltd. did not have the opportunity to inspect the goods, it was not obligated to make payment. As for why Samsung Co., Ltd. could not inspect the goods, the court considered that the inspection of goods is both a right and an obligation of the parties to a sales contract. Dingchen Company's defense that Samsung Co., Ltd. refused to inspect the goods was unsubstantiated by evidence and thus not accepted by the court. Consequently, the court supported Samsung Co., Ltd.'s claims for the return of the payment for the goods and the payment of interest. The judgment of the first instance took effect.

03

Typical Significance

In this case, based on the accurate definition of the contractual relationship involved, priority was given to the application of international treaties, reflecting the modern basic principle of 'faithful fulfillment of international obligations' in the judiciary. By analyzing and applying the relevant clauses of the 'United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods' (CISG), and primarily relying on Article 58 regarding the provision that there is no obligation to pay before having the opportunity to inspect the goods, the court made a determination favorable to the foreign party. In accordance with the 'foreseeability rule' of Article 74 and the interest provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 84 of the CISG, the court supported Samsung Co., Ltd.'s claims for the return of the payment for the goods and the payment of interest. The handling of this case, which applied the detailed provisions of the CISG, serves as a model for determining the sequence of performance obligations in similar international sales contract disputes.

来源：无锡国商法庭

编辑：赵伟

审核：李思红

BREAK AWAY