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
01
基本案情
2009年12月28日，新加坡私人有限责任公司铃兰公司对股权结构进行调整，会议纪要载明“调整后盛浩民拥有铃兰公司35%股权，吴培良拥有铃兰公司10%股权”；2010年8月14日，铃兰公司股东会决议再次明确，盛浩民、吴培良实缴金额及承担财务成本金额占铃兰公司资本金的45%；其中盛浩民持股比例为35%、吴培良持股比例为10%。各股东均在会议纪要和股东会决议上签字确认。该45%的股权全数登记于盛浩民名下。2011年12月1日，盛浩民将该45%的股权转让给案外人，铃兰公司董事会决议载明公司股东一致同意承担连带付款责任。盛浩民收到股权转让款后，未向吴培良支付其10%股权的相应比例转让款。吴培良多次催讨无果后诉至法院。
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，本案双方诉争为吴培良是否享有铃兰公司10%的股权，属股东权利义务等事项的范围，故应适用铃兰公司登记地即新加坡法律审理。法院就新加坡公司法的查明问题咨询专家意见，由华东政法大学提供了新加坡公司法的相关内容，双方均对此认可。法院一审认为根据《新加坡公司法》的规定，新加坡法律允许他人代持公司股权。虽然新加坡公司法规定股权代持协议应以备注形式附于公司章程之后，但该条款仅为倡导性规范，而非强制性规范，更非股权代持协议的生效要件，并不能仅凭该形式要求未满足即认定股权代持协议不存在或未生效。因而，法院认定吴培良享有铃兰公司10%的股权，判决盛浩民、沈燕琴承担相应的股权转让款支付义务。盛浩民、沈燕琴不服提出上诉，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
新加坡为英美法系国家，法律渊源包含成文法典、判例法、衡平法，法律查明难度较大。本案通过向华东政法大学咨询专家意见，查明《新加坡公司法》的成文法规范，在审理中通过对法条文义的解读得出新加坡法律允许他人代持公司股权的结论；同时对该法条载明的代持协议形式要件的效力问题，回归法条本身探查立法本意，从而作出该条款系倡导性规范，而非强制性规范的认定，为代持关系的认定奠定法律基础。本案的事实查明扎实，法律认定准确，通过文义对立法本意进行阐明，实现了案件审理中域外法的“查”与“明”。
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
01
基本案情
原告无锡雅仕维地铁传媒有限公司（以下简称雅仕维公司）与被告上海牵趣网络科技有限公司（以下简称上海牵趣公司）进行广告业务洽谈，后上海牵趣公司提出由牵趣进出口有限公司（以下简称香港牵趣公司）与雅仕维公司签订相关广告合同及协议，并提供说明称香港牵趣公司隶属于上海牵趣公司。合同签订后，雅仕维公司履行合同义务，但香港牵趣公司未按约付款，雅仕维公司遂诉至法院，要求上海牵趣公司与香港牵趣公司承担连带还款责任，理由是香港牵趣公司与上海牵趣公司存在人员、业务及财务混同，且上海牵趣公司为香港牵趣公司唯一股东。雅仕维公司举证其与香港牵趣公司于2015年签订过广告发布合同并已履行完毕的事实。上海牵趣公司抗辩称，根据合同相对性原则其不承担合同付款责任；香港牵趣公司不存在滥用法人独立地位和股东有限责任逃避债务情形，请求驳回雅仕维公司的诉请。
02
裁判结果
法院一审认为，关于上海牵趣公司是否滥用香港牵趣公司法人人格的争议，实质上属于香港牵趣公司是否具有法人民事权利能力及民事行为能力方面的认定，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，对于该争议的审理，应当适用香港牵趣公司登记地，即中华人民共和国香港特别行政区的法律。本案就香港特别行政区公司法的查明向华东政法大学出具了专家意见咨询函，并收到华东政法大学提供的香港中文大学法学院教授的专家意见。法院认为，根据专家意见及其援引的六个法院判例，在香港特别行政区判例法中，原告必须证明被告设立子公司的目的在于欺诈、隐瞒、逃避债务的，被告才能承担责任。同时，香港特别行政区法院判例认定设立子公司使其承担债务本身是合法的，不能因为当事人在公司集团结构上的安排而揭开公司面纱。在香港特别行政区法律框架下，一人公司财产独立性的问题实质就是财产混同问题。本案中，两公司在人员、业务方面存在着一定的重合之处，但雅仕维公司举证恰可以证明上海牵趣公司作为香港牵趣公司的股东，安排香港牵趣公司作为签约主体并无恶意不履行债务的企图，雅仕维公司也无证据证明两被告存在财产混同。法院因此判令香港牵趣公司承担相应付款责任，而驳回了雅仕维公司要求上海牵趣公司承担连带责任的诉请。判决作出后，双方均未上诉，本案一审生效。
03
典型意义
香港特别行政区法律属于英美法系，判例法占据重要地位。因司法制度不同，内地法院的法官在查明及适用判例过程中，面临定位、理解及适用判例的多重挑战。从查明的多个判例中归纳出相关裁判规则，是确保域外法适用准确性的前提，也是案件最终得到依法公正审理的基石。本案为准确查明判例法内容，法院向华东政法大学出具了专家意见咨询函；并根据香港专家意见所援引6个判例的裁判重点，综合得出在香港特别行政区判例法中认定“滥用法人人格”行为的构成要件，从而驳回了雅仕维公司要求“揭开公司面纱”、由上海牵趣公司承担连带责任的诉请，为同类案件的审理提供了有益借鉴。
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
01
基本案情
梅山海系澳大利亚大洋诚信公司（Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd）的股东。林小宁在2010年9月15日至2014年7月25日间担任该公司唯一董事，陶锡松帮助林小宁打理公司事务。2013年5月1日，大洋诚信公司将“Alexandra Gardens”业务转让给了案外公司。林小宁、陶锡松将转让款中的人民币1880595元划入陶锡峰国内账户，未返还公司。孙素萍系陶锡峰配偶。梅山海认为林小宁、陶锡松、陶锡峰、孙素萍损害了大洋诚信公司利益，请求判令林小宁返还大洋诚信公司收益款并支付利息，陶锡松、陶锡峰、孙素萍承担共同还款责任。
02
裁判结果
法院认为，本案为梅山海以大洋诚信公司股东身份提起的损害公司利益责任纠纷，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，应适用大洋诚信公司登记地法律即澳大利亚联邦法律审理。在法院限期内，双方均未提供澳大利亚公司法相关的成文法及判例，法官通过“中华人民共和国商务部全球法律网”，检索得到澳大利亚联邦《2001年公司法》（Corporations Act 2001），经双方质证无异议，作为本案适用的法律。《2001年公司法》第236条、第237条分别规定了股东代表诉讼的情形及前置程序要件，原告梅山海在提起本案诉讼时必须证明其已满足相应的规定。与《中华人民共和国公司法》确立的股东代表诉讼制度不同的是，澳大利亚联邦《2001年公司法》规定股东代表诉讼要求股东以公司名义提起诉讼。因此，本案原告梅山海的起诉不符合澳大利亚联邦《2001年公司法》的主体要求，也未能证明其履行了前置程序，故法院裁定驳回了原告梅山海的起诉。本案一审生效。
03
典型意义
本案在2020年审结，彼时关于域外法的查明的一般做法是以当事人提供为主；最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》若干问题的解释（一）第十五条亦规定了当事人无正当理由未提供域外法将视为不能查明。本院亦相应发出了限期举证通知书，但未获回应。实践中，不乏当事人受制于成本、风险、诉讼/代理能力等多重因素，将其自身查明义务转嫁于法院的情况。此时，寻找官方、正式、及时更新的查询路径是法院查明域外法的先决条件。随着各类法律法规网站/数据库的建设，法院通过互联网进行大数据检索，从而实现对域外法内容的查明、复验，已经越来越成为涉外商事案件审理中的常态。本案依职权查明域外法的能动作法，亦在《全国法院涉外商事海事审判工作座谈会会议纪要》中得到了确认，根据纪要21条规定，当7种方式均无法查明时，法院可以采用其他合理途径进行查明。互联网时代下，大数据检索的查明方式既能有效减轻当事人在法律查明方面的成本，又给法官依职权查明域外法提供了可能性，弥补了现有查明方式的不便，拓展了域外法查明的现实有效途径。
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 I
Identifying and clarifying Singaporean law, confirming the real shareholder status under equity trusteeship.
——Wu Peiliang vs. Sheng Haomin, Shen Yanqin the Property Damage Compensation Dispute
01
Basic Facts
On 28 December 2009, the Singapore private limited company Linlan Company, adjusted its shareholding structure. The minutes of the meeting stated that “after the adjustment, Sheng Haomin owns 35% of the shares of Linlan Company, and Wu Peiliang owns 10% of the shares”. On 14 August 2010, the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of Linlan Company confirmed that Sheng Haomin and Wu Peiliang had paid the actual amount and financial expenses which accounted for 45% of the capital of Linlan Company, of which Sheng Haomin held 35% and Wu Peiliang held 10%. All shareholders signed to confirm on the minutes of the meeting and the resolution of the shareholders' meeting. The 45% of the shares were all registered under the name of Sheng Haomin. On 1 December 2011, Sheng Haomin transferred these 45% of the shares to an external party, and the board resolution of Linlan Company stated that all the shareholders unanimously agreed to assume joint and several liability for payment. After receiving the proceeds of the share transfer, Sheng Haomin did not pay Wu Peiliang the corresponding portion of the transfer proceeds for its 10% shareholding. Wu Peiliang brought against Sheng and Shen after several unsuccessful demands.
02
Court Ruling
The Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City of Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as “The Court”) held that, according to Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of the Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, the dispute between the parties was whether Wu Peiliang was entitled to 10% of the shares of Linlan Company, which fell within the scope of matters concerning shareholders' rights and obligations. Therefore, the law of Singapore, where Linlan Company is registered, should be applied. The court sought an expert opinion on the clarification of Singaporean company law, and relevant content of Singapore company law was provided by East China University of Political Science and Law, which was accepted by both parties. The Court held that, according to the provisions of the Singapore Companies Act, it allowed the nominee to hold company shares. Although the Singapore Companies Act stipulates that a shareholding nominee agreement should be attached to the company's articles of association in the form of a note, this clause is only an advocacy norm, not a mandatory one, and certainly not a requirement for the effectiveness of the shareholding nominee agreement. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the shareholding nominee agreement does not exist or has not come into effect simply because this formal requirement is not met. Therefore, the court recognized that Wu Peiliang was entitled to 10% of the shares of Linlan Company and ordered Sheng Haomin and Shen Yanqin to undertake the corresponding payment obligation for the transfer of the shares. Sheng Haomin and Shen Yanqin appealed against the decision, but The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.
03
Typical Significance
Singapore is a common law country with legal sources including statutes, case law, and equity law, making the ascertainment of the law relatively challenging. In this case, by consulting experts from East China University of Political Science and Law, the statutory provisions of the Singapore Companies Act were ascertained. At the same time, as to the validity of the form requirements for the nominee holding agreement set out in the said statutory provision, the original intention of the legislature was explored by going back to the text of the statutory provision itself. This led to the determination that the clause is an advocacy norm rather than a mandatory one, laying the legal foundation for the recognition of the nominee -holding relationship. The fact findings in this case were sound, and the legal determination was accurate. By clarifying the legislative intent through the meaning of the text, the 'exploration' and 'clarification' of foreign law in the trial process was achieved.
Case II
Applying 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
01
Basic Facts
The plaintiff, Wuxi Yaswei Metro Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yaswei Company), negotiated advertising business with the defendant, Shanghai Qianqu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Qianqu Company). Subsequently, Shanghai Qianqu Company proposed that Qianqu Import & Export Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong Qianqu Company) sign the relevant advertising contracts and agreements with Yaswei Company, and provided an explanation that Hong Kong Qianqu Company was affiliated with Shanghai Qianqu Company. After the contract was signed, Yaswei Company fulfilled its contractual obligations, but Hong Kong Qianqu Company failed to make the payment as agreed. Yaswei Company then sued in court, demanding that Shanghai Qianqu Company and Hong Kong Qianqu Company bear joint and several repayment responsibilities. The reason is that there is a confusion of personnel, business, and finance between Hong Kong Qianqu Company and Shanghai Qianqu Company, and that Shanghai Qianqu Company is the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Qianqu Company. During the trial, Yaswei Company provided evidence that it had signed an advertising contract with Hong Kong Qianqu Company in 2015, which had been fulfilled already. Shanghai Qianqu Company argued that according to the principle of relativity of the contract, it should not bear the responsibility for payment of the contract; there was no abuse of the independent status of the corporation and the limited liability of the shareholder by Hong Kong Qianqu Company to evade debts, and requested to dismiss Yaswei Company's claims.
02
Court Ruling
The Court held that, the dispute over whether Shanghai Qianqu Company had abused the corporate personality of Hong Kong Qianqu Company essentially pertained to the determination of whether Hong Kong Qianqu Company had civil rights and capacity for civil conduct as a legal person. According to Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, the trial of this dispute should apply the law of the place where Hong Kong Qianqu Company is registered, namely, the law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The Court consulted East China University of Political Science and Law to clarify the company law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. A professor from the Faculty of Law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong provided an expert opinion on the matter. The court believed that, according to the expert opinion and the six court cases cited therein, under the case law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the plaintiff must prove that the purpose of the defendant by establishing a subsidiary was to defraud, conceal, or evade debts, and only in that case can the defendant be held liable. Additionally, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region case law has held that it is lawful to establish a subsidiary for the purpose of incurring debt and that the corporate veil cannot be pierced merely because of the arrangements of the parties in the group structure. Under the legal framework of the HKSAR, the issue of the independence of ownership of a one-person company essentially concerns the commingling of assets. In this case, there was some overlap between the two companies in terms of personnel and business, but Yaswei Company's evidence could precisely prove that Shanghai Qianqu Company, as a shareholder of Hong Kong Qianqu Company, arranged for Hong Kong Qianqu Company to be the contracting party without any malicious intent not to fulfill the debts. Yaswei Company also had no evidence to prove that the two defendants had commingled assets. Therefore, the court ruled that Hong Kong Qianqu Company should bear the corresponding payment responsibility, and rejected Yaswei Company's claim for Shanghai Qianqu Company to bear joint and several liability. Neither party appealed the judgment and it became final.
03
Typical Significance
The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region belongs to the Anglo-American legal system, where case law occupies a significant position. Due to the differences in legal systems, judges in mainland courts face multiple challenges in identifying, understanding, and applying case law. Inferring relevant adjudication rules from multiple identified cases is a prerequisite for ensuring the accuracy of the application of foreign law and is also the cornerstone for the lawful and fair trial of cases. To accurately ascertain the content of case law, the court issued an expert opinion consultation letter to East China University of Political Science and Law, and based on the key points of judgment in the six cases cited by the Hong Kong expert opinions, it synthesized the constitutive elements for the act of "abuse of corporate personality" recognized in the precedents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Consequently, the court rejected Yaswei Company's request to "pierce the corporate veil" and hold Shanghai Qianqu Company jointly liable, providing useful references for the trial of similar cases.
Case III
The 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
01
Basic Facts
Mei Shanhai is a shareholder of Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd., which is an Australian company. Lin Xiaoning served as the sole director of the company from September 15, 2010, to July 25, 2014, with Tao Xisong assisting Lin in managing the company's affairs. On May 1, 2013, Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd. transferred its 'Alexandra Gardens' business to an external company. Lin Xiaoning and Tao Xisong then transferred RMB 1,880,595 to Tao Xi Feng's domestic account, which was not returned to the company. Sun Suping is the spouse of Tao Xi Feng. Mei Shanhai believes that Lin Xiaoning, Tao Xisong, Tao Xi Feng, and Sun Suping have harmed the interests of Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd and requests the court to order Lin Xiaoning to return the company's profits and pay interest, with Tao Xisong, Tao Xi Feng, and Sun Suping bearing joint repayment responsibility.
02
Court Ruling
The Court held that, this case was a dispute over liability for damages to the company's interests filed by Mei Shanhai as a shareholder of Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd. According to Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, lex domicilii, namely the Law of the Commonwealth of Australia where Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd is registered, should be applied. Within the time limit set by the court, neither party provided relevant statutes or case law from Australian company law. The judge obtained the Commonwealth of Australia's “Corporations Act 2001” through the “Global Legal Network” of the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China. After verification by both parties and without objection, it was applied to this case. Sections 236 and 237 of the “Corporations Act 2001” respectively stipulate the circumstances and procedural requirements for shareholder representative litigation. The plaintiff, Mei Shanhai, must prove that he has met the corresponding provisions when initiating the lawsuit. Unlike the shareholder representative litigation system established by the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, the “Corporations Act 2001” of the Commonwealth of Australia requires that the shareholder initiates the lawsuit in the name of the company. Therefore, the claim filed by the plaintiff Mei Shanhai did not satisfy the subject matter requirement of the "Corporations Act 2001" of the Commonwealth of Australia, nor did it prove that it satisfied the procedural requirements; therefore, the court dismissed the claim filed by the plaintiff Mei Shanhai. The judgment was effective since Mei Shanhai didn’t appeal.
03
Typical Significance
This case was concluded in 2020, when the general practice for ascertaining foreign law primarily relied on the submissions by the parties involved. Article 15 of the “Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations” also stipulates that if the parties fail to provide foreign law without reasonable cause shall be deemed as the inability to ascertain. The court accordingly issued a notice within a specified time limit, but there was no response. In practice, it is common for parties to shift their obligation to ascertain the law onto the court due to multiple factors such as cost, risk, and litigation/representation capabilities. At this point, finding an official, formal, and timely updated query path is a prerequisite for the court to ascertain foreign law. With the construction of various legal websites/databases, it has become increasingly commom for courts to conduct big data searches on the Internet to ascertain and verify the content of foreign law in the trial of foreign-related commercial cases. The proactive approach of this case in ascertaining foreign law ex officio was confirmed in the “Summary of the National Conference on Trial Work of Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Cases by Courts.” According to Item 21 of the summary, when the seven methods all fail to ascertain the law, the court may use other reasonable means to do so. In the Internet era, the method of big data search not only effectively reduces the cost for parties in ascertaining the law but also provides the possibility for judges to ascertain foreign law ex officio, making up for the inconvenience of existing methods and expanding practical and effective approaches for ascertaining foreign law.
来源：无锡国商法庭
编辑：赵伟
审核：李思红
BREAK AWAY