70 adjudication rules for territorial jurisdiction disputes
Revised May 2024
01. Guiding Case No. 025: Huatai Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. Beijing Branch v. Li Zhigui and Tianan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd., Hebei Branch Zhangjiakou Branch Insurer Subrogation Dispute
[Summary of the trial]:
If the insurer compensates the insured for the insurance money and subrogates the insured's right to claim compensation against the third party and files a lawsuit due to the damage caused by the third party to the subject matter of the insurance, the competent court shall be determined according to the legal relationship between the insured and the third party subrogated by the insurer, and not on the basis of the legal relationship of the insurance contract. If a third party infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of the insured, the court at the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is domiciled shall have jurisdiction.
Case No.: :(2012) Dong Min Chu Zi No. 13663
02. Reference case: An aluminum company in Xingyang v. a patent transfer contract dispute of a Baona Lijin company in Suzhou
[Summary of the trial]:
In principle, disputes arising from equity transfer contracts containing patent transfer clauses are equity transfer contract disputes, not patent right transfer contract disputes, and should not be treated as patent cases to determine jurisdiction.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 158
03. Reference case: A law firm and Lin Moumou executed a reconsideration case
[Summary of the trial]:
The jurisdiction of arbitral award enforcement cases shall not only examine the domicile of the person subject to enforcement, but also the location of the property subject to enforcement. If the applicant for enforcement provides the enforcement court with a number of property clues within the jurisdiction of the enforcement court, and the enforcement court confirms that it is true after investigation, it may use it as the basis for the jurisdiction of the enforcement of the arbitral award.
Case No.: :(2022) Qiong Zhifu No. 180
04. Reference case: A case of unfair competition dispute between three companies of a Chinese group suing a Swedish company, an American company and a Chinese company of a telecommunications group
[Summary of the trial]:
Where a party initiates a lawsuit due to losses suffered by an act of foreign unfair competition in China, the place where the alleged act of unfair competition in the foreign country adversely affects the order of competition in China's domestic market may be the link point for the jurisdiction of the case.
Case No.: :(2021) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 300
05. Reference case: A company in Hangzhou v. a company in Dongying and a company in Shanghai, a dispute over the royalties for the temporary protection period of an invention patent and infringement of invention patent rights
[Summary of the trial]:
Although a dispute over the royalty of a temporary term of protection of an invention patent is not a patent infringement dispute in the general sense, it is essentially a patent-related infringement dispute, and the jurisdiction should be determined in accordance with the principle of determining the jurisdiction of the relevant infringement lawsuit. Where the alleged infringement is carried out before or after the date of the announcement of the grant of the invention patent, the act shall be continuous and consistent. In order to facilitate the litigation of the parties, the right holder should be allowed to claim the royalties of the temporary protection period and the patent infringement at the same time.
The provisions of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Dispute Cases stipulate that "if the manufacturer and the seller are co-defendants, the people's court at the place of sale shall have jurisdiction", the original intention is that the right holder can claim rights in the place where the alleged infringing product is sold, and not only the part of the alleged infringing product manufactured and sold to the seller in the place of sale of the allegedly infringing product.
Case No.: :(2008) Min Shen Zi No. 81
06. Reference case: Qu v. a forestry contract dispute of a forestry development company
[Summary of the trial]:
The domicile of a legal person or other organization refers to the location of the legal person's or other organization's main office. If there is a change in the domicile of the company registered with the company registration authority, it shall apply for a change of registration before moving to the new domicile. In the absence of evidence to prove that the location of the company's main office is different from its registered domicile, the court with jurisdiction over the case shall be determined according to the registered domicile.
Case Number: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 52
07. Reference case: Qu v. Jin et al., a private lending dispute case
[Summary of the trial]:
A citizen's habitual residence refers to the place where the citizen has resided continuously for more than one year from the time of leaving the place of residence to the time of filing the lawsuit, except for the place where the citizen is hospitalized for medical treatment. When determining habitual residence during the prosecution and acceptance phases, the certificates provided by the parties, the certificates issued by the village (neighborhood) committee, and the unit units, as well as the consumption and payment records generated by production and life, may be used as evidence for the people's court's determination of habitual residence. Where the evidence described above can show that a party has resided in a certain place for more than one year continuously at the time of filing the lawsuit, and it is not due to hospitalization for medical treatment, it may be found that the place is his habitual residence.
[Case Number] :(2023) Lu Min Zhi Zhong No. 98
08. Reference case: Hubei XX Environmental Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Zhengzhou XX Electric Power Cleaning Co., Ltd., Chen XX et al., a dispute over infringement of trade secrets
[Summary of the trial]:
In a trade secret infringement dispute, the place where the result of the infringement occurs should be understood as the place where the result of the infringement directly occurs, and the place where the plaintiff is located cannot be considered to be the place where the result of the infringement occurs solely on the ground that the right holder believes that it has suffered damage.
Case No.: :(2013) Min Ti Zi No. 16
09. Reference case: Xiamen Sanitary Ware Technology Co., Ltd. v. a nail salon in Fenyang City, a dispute over infringement of utility model patent rights
[Summary of the trial]:
If the alleged infringing product is sold through the Internet, and the seller waits for the purchaser to submit an order before purchasing the corresponding goods from a third party, and instructs the third party to send the goods directly to the purchaser, the third party's delivery act shall be deemed to be the seller's delivery act, and the place of shipment shall be determined to be the seller's place of shipment, and the place of shipment may constitute a jurisdictional link in the infringement case with the seller as the defendant.
Case Number: :(2023) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 170
10. Reference case: A company limited by shares sued a U.S. company et al., a dispute over infringement of trade secrets
[Summary of the trial]:
The sale of infringing products manufactured by infringing trade secrets does not constitute an act of infringing trade secrets as defined in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Generally speaking, the place where the use of trade secrets is carried out and the place where the results occur coincide. The process of using a trade secret is usually the process of manufacturing an infringing product, and when the infringing product is manufactured, the infringement result of the use of the trade secret occurs at the same time, and it is not appropriate to regard the place where the infringing product is sold as the place where the infringement result of the use of the trade secret occurs.
Case No.: :(2007) Min San Zhong Zi No. 10
11. Reference case: Guo XX v. Liaoning Agricultural Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd., a dispute over a planting and breeding recovery contract
[Summary of the trial]:
Where a party sues to terminate the contract for the transfer of forest ownership and forest land use rights, the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction over real estate disputes do not apply because the subject matter of the litigation does not involve the confirmation or division of forest trees and forest land ownership, and does not meet the circumstances under which jurisdiction should be determined in accordance with real estate disputes.
Case No.: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 69
12. Reference case: Cai Moumou v. Nanjing Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd., a decoration contract dispute case
[Summary of the trial]:
In the event of a dispute between the parties arising from the performance of the decoration contract, the jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the real estate dispute.
Case No.: :(2021) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 59
13. Reference case: A bank v. a real estate development company and other financial loan contract disputes
[Summary of the trial]:
Where a creditor files a lawsuit under the main contract and the guarantee contract, and simultaneously claims rights against the principal debtor and the guarantor, the jurisdiction of the case shall be determined in accordance with the main contract.
Case No.: :(2019) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 526
14. Reference case: Zhang v. a company in Beijing et al., a dispute over infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works
[Summary of the trial]:
In cases of civil disputes over infringement of the right to transmit information online, territorial jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with article 15 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Infringement of the Right of Information Network Transmission".
Case Number: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 42
15. Reference case: A cultural communication company sued a cultural and creative company for a construction project contract dispute
[Summary of the trial]:
If the parties sue the construction contract and other related contracts together, since the two contracts are for the same project and are performed at the same time, there is a related relationship, and after the plaintiff sues together, the defendant does not raise a jurisdictional objection and raises a counterclaim, in this case, the people's court may hear the case together and determine the competent court in accordance with the real estate dispute.
Case No.: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 77
16. Appellant Xiao Zhiyong and Appellee Huabao Trust Co., Ltd. Dispute over Jurisdiction over Guarantee Contract
[Summary of the trial]:
Guarantee contract disputes do not belong to the two types of special contract disputes of insurance contracts and transportation contracts as provided for in articles 24 and 27 of the Civil Procedure Law, and shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the defendant is domiciled or the place where the guarantee contract is performed in accordance with the general principles of jurisdiction over contract dispute cases in Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Law, and shall not be subject to the Supreme People's <中华人民共和国担保法>Court's Decision on ApplicationThe first paragraph of Article 129 of the Interpretation of Several Issues stipulates that "in the event of a dispute over a guarantee contract for which the guarantor bears joint and several liability, the creditor shall have jurisdiction over the rights of the guarantor's domicile", the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the guarantee contract is performed cannot be excluded.
Case Number: :(2021) Hu Min Zhi Zhong No. 60
17. Shanxi Xingfengyuan Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Shanxi No. 2 Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. Jurisdiction Objection Appeal
[Summary of the trial]:
The domicile of the company is the location of the company's main office. There can only be one company domicile registered with the company registration authority. The domicile of the company shall be within the jurisdiction of its company registration authority. If there is a change in the domicile recorded in the company's business license, the company shall go through the change registration in accordance with the law. Before the parties have changed the registration, the court may determine that the domicile of the company is the domicile of the industrial and commercial registration.
Case Number: :(2014) Jin Limin Zhong Zi No. 82
18. Beijing Zhiyang Weibo Technology Development Co., Ltd., Chuangsi Biotechnology Engineering (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., and Kaifeng City Administration Bureau, Henan Province, intermediary contract dispute
[Summary of the trial]:
When the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit files a lawsuit, multiple defendants are listed, and since the domicile of one of the defendants is within the jurisdiction of the people's court accepting the case, the people's court accepting the case may determine jurisdiction based on the defendant's domicile. If the other defendants believe that the people's court accepting the case does not have jurisdiction, they shall raise an objection to jurisdiction within the first-instance trial defense period, and if they do not raise an objection during this period, because the case has already entered the substantive trial stage and jurisdiction has already been determined, even if the defendant within the jurisdiction of the people's court accepting the case is not a qualified defendant in the case, the people's court may rule to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant, which does not affect the substantive trial of the case and does not need to transfer jurisdiction.
Case Number: :(2007) Yu Fa Min Er Zhong Zi No. 166
19. Beijing Tianyan Times Investment Management Co., Ltd. v. Xinjiang Dongping Coking Co., Ltd. Appeal on the jurisdiction of the enterprise loan dispute
[Summary of the trial]:
There can only be one domicile of a company registered with the company registration authority, and the domicile of the company shall be within the jurisdiction of the company registration authority. If the company changes its domicile, it shall apply for the change of registration before moving into the new domicile and submit the certificate of use of the new domicile.
[Case document number]: Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court (2014) Yi Zhong Min Zhong Zi No. 07236
20. Tianjin Beidou Satellite Navigation and Positioning Technology Co., Ltd. v. Huang Kun Technology Entrusted Development Contract Dispute Jurisdictional Objection Appeal
[Summary of the trial]:
The understanding of "a place of continuous residence for more than one year" in Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law should be determined on the basis of determining the jurisdiction of the case level or the jurisdiction of a special people's court, and cannot be mechanically understood as the county, district, or other basic administrative division where the parties reside, let alone a microscopic residence. When the jurisdiction of the case is over by the intermediate or high people's courts, it shall be examined whether the defendant has resided in the relevant administrative area at the prefecture-level city or provincial level, or whether he has resided continuously within the corresponding administrative area for more than one year, and then determine the defendant's habitual residence.
[Case document number]: Supreme People's Court (2020) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 104
21. Loan contract dispute between Shanghai Dongdan Financial Information Service Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Leyi Internet Financial Information Service Co., Ltd., Chen Haidong and others
[Summary of the trial]:
A legal person or other organization shall be domiciled at the place of industrial and commercial registration or registration. An enterprise may have more than one business site, and the domicile registered by industry and commerce has the effect of publicity, and is the natural location of the main office of the enterprise. The domicile of a legal person or other organization cannot be determined solely on the basis of a lease contract.
[Case document number]: Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court (2017) Hu 02 Min Zhi Zhong No. 1291
22. Case of objection to jurisdiction over divorce dispute between Quan and Chen
[Summary of the trial]:
Litigation against a person who has been imprisoned has jurisdiction over the people's court at the place where the plaintiff is domiciled.
[Case document number]: Intermediate People's Court of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province (2020) Gan 01 Min Zhong No. 1908
23. Appellant Ningxia Qinyi Industrial Group Co., Ltd. and Appellee Alashankou Xinke Co., Ltd. Dispute over Jurisdictional Objection Appeal
[Summary of the trial]:
In cases where the parties agree to file a lawsuit with the people's court of their respective domiciles, after either party initiates a lawsuit and the case is filed and accepted by the court at its domicile, the other party requests the people's court at its domicile to repeat the case or transfer the case to the people's court at its domicile, it shall be rejected.
Case Number: :(2005) Min Er Zhong Zi No. 94
24. The dispute over the repayment of the debts of the decedent can be determined in accordance with the contract dispute - the dispute over the repayment of the debts of the decedent between Wang and Zhang, Lv1, Lv2 and Lv3
[Summary of the trial]:
During the period of accepting a lawsuit, the people's court shall determine the cause of action on the basis of the legal relationship asserted by the parties. The cause of action in this case should be determined as a dispute over the repayment of debts of the decedent. For such disputes, the subject of the rights and obligations of the legal relationship involved is the property heir of the creditor and the debtor, and it is a debt repayment dispute between the creditor and the debtor's successor, and the competent court may be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>Article 18 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application.
Case Number: :(2018) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 165
25. National Trust Co., Ltd., Xi'an New Milestone Investment Co., Ltd. v. Guo Xingxing and Zhang Peng, a case of jurisdictional objection to the capital contribution dispute between shareholders
[Summary of the trial]:
If the original defendants involved in the dispute are all shareholders of the company and the company is a third party in the case, the nature of the case should be determined according to the legal relationship between the original defendants, i.e., the investment agreement, but not on the basis of the legal relationship between the defendant and the third party. If a shareholder of the company believes that a dispute arises due to the withdrawal of capital contributions by other shareholders, it is a dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement as stipulated in the investment agreement, and the parties to the dispute over the withdrawal of capital contribution by the shareholder may agree on the competent court. The premise for the application of Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 22 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law is that the company is the plaintiff or defendant in the litigation.
Case Number: :(2018) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 140
26. Jiang Min v. Liu Xingqun, Shanghai No. 3 Machine Tool Factory, Wu Jian, and Shanghai Sinopec Building Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Shareholders Dispute over Liability for Harming the Interests of the Company's Creditors
[Summary of the trial]:
In a case of infringement jurisdiction, the determination of the place where the result of the infringement occurred should be limited to the place where the infringement was directly caused, that is, the place where the victim's rights were directly harmed as a result of the infringement. If the plaintiff's domicile can be regarded as the place of the infringement result only because the plaintiff has suffered the result of the infringement, then the damage of the right holder in almost all infringement cases will always be reflected in the plaintiff's domicile, which may make the place where the infringement result occurred "generalized", which is equivalent to abolishing the criterion of the defendant's domicile, which will lead to significant damage to the defendant's jurisdictional interests. The jurisdiction rule for tort is to achieve a balance of jurisdictional interests between the plaintiff and the defendant, rather than assigning all cases to the jurisdiction of the plaintiff's domicile. Therefore, the definition of the place where the result of infringement occurs should be reasonably limited by the standard of direct result.
Case Number: :(2019) Hu 01 Min Zhi Zhong No. 85
27. Chen Qingling v. Shenzhen Netdomain Computer Network Co., Ltd., a dispute over online game infringement
[Summary of the trial]:
The seizure of virtual objects such as player accounts and equipment and Huaxia coins by an online game company constitutes a competition between infringement and breach of contract, and the court shall make a determination of jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's claim when determining jurisdiction. If a player files a lawsuit on the grounds of infringement, because the network information is formed through the Internet connection between the terminal database server of the network company and the customer's computer, and the infringed property of the network user modifies its data through the terminal server of the network company, and the computer terminal used by the network user is fed back and perceived, the location of the terminal server of both parties can be used as the place of infringement.
Case No.: :(2006) Wen Min Si Li Zhong Zi No. 136
28. Beijing Chaoyang District Friends of Nature Environmental Research Institute, All-China Environment Federation and PetroChina Co., Ltd., PetroChina Jilin Oilfield Branch Environmental Pollution Public Interest Litigation Case
[Summary of the trial]:
In environmental public interest civil litigation cases, where a social organization lists the branch of the legal person that carried out the environmental pollution act and the legal person that established the branch as defendants in initiating a lawsuit, it shall confirm that the legal person is a qualified defendant. When several courts have jurisdiction over the case, the special rules of environmental public interest litigation shall be followed, and the case shall be transferred to the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the pollution was carried out and the result of the harm, so as to accurately ascertain the facts, determine responsibility in accordance with law, and ensure that the damaged ecological environment is promptly and effectively restored.
Case No.: :(2018) Supreme Law Min Zai No. 177
29. When suing the debtor and the guarantor at the same time, the jurisdiction of the case shall be determined by the main contract.
[Summary of the trial]:
This case is a dispute between Shanghai Huadi Company and Ningxia Shenyin Company over the performance of the Construction Contract, and Shanghai Huadi Company asserts that Yuan Moumou (the guarantor) should bear the responsibility of jointly paying the project money due to the debt joining, which does not change the nature of the dispute in this case as a construction contract dispute.
On the issue of Yuan's assertion that this case should be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the guarantor is domiciled. Article 129 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that: "Where a lawsuit arises in the event of a dispute between the main contract and the guarantee contract, the jurisdiction of the case shall be determined in accordance with the main contract. In the event of a dispute over a guarantee contract for which the guarantor bears joint and several liability, and the creditor claims rights against the guarantor, the court at the place where the guarantor is domiciled shall have jurisdiction. Where the court with jurisdiction over the main contract and the guarantee contract is inconsistent, the jurisdiction of the case shall be determined on the basis of the main contract. ”
In this case, Shanghai Huadi Company claimed from Qiu, Shanghai Shengxuan Company, Caituo Company and Caituo Ningxia Company that the main creditor's rights guaranteed by the guarantee liability were based on the Construction Contract involved in the case, and the court of first instance determined the jurisdiction according to the dispute over the construction contract, which was in line with the provisions of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 291
30. When determining the jurisdiction of civil disputes over infringement of the right of information network transmission, article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Information Network Communication shall be used as the basis - a dispute between Zhang Moulong and the defendants Beijing Modi Culture Communication Co., Ltd., Cheng X, and Ma X for infringement of the right to disseminate information on the network of works
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Information Network Transmission, which came into effect on January 1, 2013, stipulates that "civil disputes over infringement of the right of information network transmission shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is domiciled." The place of infringement includes the location of the network server, computer terminal and other equipment that carried out the alleged infringement. Where it is difficult to determine the place where the infringing act occurred and the defendant's domicile is located or is outside the country, the location of the computer terminal and other equipment where the plaintiff discovered the infringing content may be deemed to be the place where the infringement occurred. In 2020, the judicial interpretation was amended, but the content of the above-mentioned Article 15 has not been amended and continues to be implemented. This provision is a special provision regulating the jurisdiction of civil cases such as disputes over infringement of the right of information network transmission.
Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that "the place where the infringement result of information network infringement occurs 、、、、、 includes the domicile of the infringed party." The "information network infringement" in this provision is aimed at the infringement that occurs in the information network environment and is carried out through the information network, and is not limited to specific types of civil rights or interests. In contrast, the "right of information network dissemination" stipulated in Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Information Network Dissemination is the legal right enjoyed by the copyright owner as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, that is, "the right to provide the work to the public by wire or wireless means, so that the public can obtain the work at a time and place of their own choosing." Therefore, Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Information Network Dissemination is a special provision on the jurisdiction of civil cases of disputes over infringement of the right of information network dissemination in response to the specific type of civil right of information network dissemination. When determining jurisdiction over civil disputes involving infringement of the right to transmit information online, article 15 of the Provisions on the Right to Transmit Information on Networks shall be used as the basis.
Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Information Network Dissemination clearly stipulates that only in exceptional circumstances where "the place where both the place of the infringement and the defendant's domicile are difficult to determine or are located abroad" can "the location of the computer terminal and other equipment where the plaintiff discovers the infringing content" be regarded as the place of infringement. Based on the nature and characteristics of the right of information network dissemination, once the infringement of the right of information network dissemination occurs, and then "the public can obtain the work at the time and place of their own choosing", the territorial scope of the infringement result is random and extensive, and it is not a fixed location, so it should not be used as the basis for determining jurisdiction.
In this case, Qinhuangdao City is the domicile of the plaintiff, not the domicile of the defendant, nor is it the place of infringement under Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Information Network Transmission. In this case, there is also no exception to the rule that "the place of infringement and the defendant's domicile are difficult to determine or are located abroad" as stipulated in Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Information Network Transmission. Therefore, the Qinhuangdao Intermediate People's Court has no jurisdiction over this case, and it is not improper for the Hebei High Court to transfer this case to the Beijing Internet Court.
Case Number: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 42
31. Determination of whether the place of use of the alleged infringing product constitutes a jurisdictional nexus -- an appeal case of jurisdictional objection to the dispute between the appellant Zibo Linzi Ruishuo Chemical Accessories Co., Ltd. and the appellee Tianjin Gute Energy Conservation and Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. over infringement of utility model patent rights
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that: in this case, Goode Company filed a lawsuit against Ruishuo Company, claiming that Ruishuo Company produced, sold, offered to sell, and use the allegedly infringing products, and submitted photos of the allegedly infringing products to prove that the production unit of the allegedly infringing products was Ruishuo Company. However, the evidence submitted by Goode Company only preliminarily proved that the alleged infringing products were used by Sinopec Zhenhai Refining & Chemical Branch, which was not sufficient to prove that Ruishuo Company carried out the alleged infringement acts in Ningbo, Zhejiang, so Zhejiang Ningbo was not the place where Ruishuo Company was accused of infringement. The evidence submitted by Goode Company was also insufficient to prove that the place of production, sales and promising sales of Ruishuo Company was in Ningbo, Zhejiang, so Zhejiang Ningbo was not the place where the infringement result of Ruishuo Company's alleged infringement occurred. In summary, the court of first instance does not have jurisdiction over this case. The Supreme People's Court finally ruled to revoke the original ruling and transfer the case to the Jinan Intermediate People's Court in Shandong Province for trial.
Case No.: :(2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 310
32. The basis for determining jurisdiction cannot be based on the mere sale of "another variety of propagating material obtained through the repeated use of propagating materials of authorized varieties" -- appellants Dandong Denghai Liangyu Seed Industry Co., Ltd., Song Mouliang, Song Mouliang and the appellees Shandong Denghai Pioneer Seed Industry Co., Ltd., and the defendants of the original trial, Shenyang Sujiatun District Langrun Agricultural Materials Supermarket and DuPont Pioneer Investment Co., Ltd
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that the alleged infringement in this case occurred after January 1, 2016 and before March 1, 2022, so the Seed Law amended in 2015 should be applied to the trial of this case. According to the relevant provisions of the Seed Law at that time, the act of merely selling "the propagating material of another variety obtained by reusing the propagating material of the authorized variety" was not an infringement expressly prohibited by law.
In this case, as the plaintiff sued Langrun Supermarket to determine the jurisdiction of the case, its alleged sale of "Denghai 939" propagating materials did not constitute an infringement under the Seed Law at that time, and the accused act against the defendant obviously did not constitute an arguable infringement. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not claim that Langrun Supermarket and the other defendants involved in the case constituted joint infringement or aided in infringement. Therefore, the defendant lacked substantial relevance to the dispute in this case.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that Langrun Supermarket constituted infringement and determined the jurisdiction of the case as a co-defendant lacked legal and factual basis, and the place where it was accused of infringement and its domicile did not constitute a link that could determine the jurisdiction of this case. Accordingly, the Supreme People's Court made a final ruling, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original ruling.
The judgment of this case makes it clear that when the parties have a dispute over the jurisdiction of a civil case, especially when the plaintiff claims rights on the basis of the place of conduct or domicile of a co-defendant in a joint litigation, the people's court shall conduct a preliminary examination of the legal and factual basis on which the plaintiff is asserting rights and related to the determination of the jurisdiction of the case, and cannot simply reject the parties' objections to jurisdiction on the basis that whether the act being sued is established needs to be determined by substantive trial.
When the plaintiff's claim against the co-defendant on which the jurisdiction of the case is determined clearly lacks a legal basis or factual basis, the people's court cannot use the co-defendant as a jurisdictional link to determine the jurisdiction of the case, otherwise, it may condone the act of artificially creating a jurisdictional link to circumvent the law.
Case No.: :(2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 267
33. Determination of Jurisdiction in Monopoly Dispute Cases -- Appellant Shangqiu Longxing Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Appellee Hubei Tuosi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Appeal on Jurisdiction Objection to Monopoly Agreement Disputes
[Summary of the trial]:
After the trial, the Supreme People's Court held that (2020) E 1202 Min Chu No. 3390 (i.e., the previous case) and this case did not constitute duplicate litigation. According to Longxing Company's claim, this case involved a civil dispute arising from monopolistic behavior.
The agreement between the two parties stipulates that the people's court of the domicile of Enrichment Company shall have jurisdiction, and the domicile of Enrichment Company shall be located in Xianning City, Hubei Province.
According to the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on Agreeing to the Intermediate People's Courts of Nanjing, Suzhou, Wuhan and Chengdu Municipalities to Establish Special Adjudication Institutions and Cross-regional Jurisdiction over Certain Intellectual Property Cases, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuhan Municipality, Hubei Province, has jurisdiction over first-instance civil intellectual property cases of monopoly disputes occurring within the jurisdiction of Hubei Province. Accordingly, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuhan Municipality, Hubei Province, has jurisdiction over the case.
Case Number: :(2021) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 187
34. The determination of a citizen's habitual residence shall be considered in three aspects: first, the defendant must have resided in the place for one year; second, the period of one year must be continuous and uninterrupted; and third, the defendant must still reside in the place at the time of the indictment. In the specific case of this case, from the information ascertained by the court, it was not possible to determine the habitual residence of the defendant at the time of the indictment. Therefore, this case should be under the jurisdiction of the court of the defendant's place of household registration - the property dispute between Fang and Zhang after their divorce
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that this case is a post-divorce property dispute, and the relevant provisions on general territorial jurisdiction should be applied to determine the competent court. Article 21 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the people's court of the defendant's domicile shall have jurisdiction over civil litigation brought against citizens; <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法的解释>Article 4 of the Supreme People's Court on Application stipulates that a citizen's habitual residence refers to the place where the citizen has resided continuously for more than one year from the time he leaves his or her place of residence to the time of filing a lawsuit, except for the place where the citizen is hospitalized for medical treatment.
The application of the above provisions to determine the habitual residence of a citizen shall be considered from three aspects:
First, the defendant must have resided in the place for one year;
Second, the one-year period must be continuous and uninterrupted;
Third, at the time of the indictment, the defendant was still residing there.
Specifically, in this case, judging from the information ascertained by the courts of the two places, it was not possible to determine whether Zhang Gang was still residing in Huli District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province, at the time of Fang Yandan's lawsuit. Therefore, this case should be under the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant Zhang Gang is registered, that is, the Anhui Xiangshan Court.
Case Number: :(2020) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 92
35. If a dispute arises between the parties based on the same legal relationship or the same legal facts, and they file lawsuits with different courts with different claims, how to determine the jurisdiction ?——of the dispute over the sales contract between Jiangsu New United Heavy Industry Technology Co., Ltd. and Lianhot Changfeng Xiehe Wind Energy Development Co., Ltd
[Summary of the trial]:
In order to avoid conflicts between adjudications, it is advisable to have multiple cases heard by the same court in conjunction with different courts. If one of the courts discovers that it does not have jurisdiction over the case after filing a case, it shall rule to transfer the case to the people's court with jurisdiction for joint trial; Where a dispute arises between two or more people's courts over jurisdiction, the relevant people's court shall stop the substantive trial and resolve the dispute over jurisdiction through negotiation in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Civil Procedure Law, and if the negotiation fails, report to the people's court at the level above for designation of jurisdiction.
Case No.: :(2020) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 60
36. The lawsuit arising from a contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the court at the place where the defendant is domiciled or where the contract is performed, and even if the company loses its independent legal personality, it will not affect the exercise of the jurisdiction of the court with jurisdiction - Beijing Jinchen Xinghe Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Chunhong Phase II Investment Management Partnership Financial Loan Contract Dispute
[Summary of the trial]:
Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the people's court at the place where the defendant is domiciled or where the contract is performed shall have jurisdiction over a lawsuit arising from a contract dispute. The domicile of Haichen Real Estate Company, one of the defendants in this case, is in Guangdong Province, so the court of first instance has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with the law. Jinchen Xinghe Company claimed that Haichen Real Estate Company had lost its independent legal personality and its qualifications as an entity were restricted. However, this does not affect the fact that the domicile of Haichen Real Estate Company is within the jurisdiction of the court of first instance.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 168
37. Determination of the use of parts and components as a jurisdictional connection point
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court pointed out that if the allegedly infringing product is a part of another product, and the use of the other product also realizes the use value of the allegedly infringing product as a component, the use also constitutes the use of the allegedly infringing parts and components, which can be used as a link to determine the jurisdiction of the case.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 201
38. Determination of infringement of information network as a jurisdictional link
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court pointed out that <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>the information network infringement as the link point of jurisdiction as provided for in Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court refers to the infringement carried out in its entirety on the information network, and if only part of the infringement is committed online, it does not constitute the above-mentioned information network infringement, and the provisions of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation cannot be applied to determine jurisdiction.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Law Zhimin Zhi Zhong No. 13
39. The principle of appropriate contact in the jurisdiction of foreign-related civil dispute cases
[Summary of the trial]:
Whether a Chinese court has jurisdiction over a foreign-related civil dispute brought by a defendant who does not have a domicile or representative office in China should examine whether the dispute has an appropriate connection with China. To determine whether a SEP licensing dispute in which the defendant does not have a domicile or office in China, it may be considered whether the location of the subject matter of the license, the place of patent implementation, the place where the contract is signed, and the place where the contract is performed are within China. If one of the aforesaid locations is in China, the case shall be deemed to have an appropriate connection with China, and the Chinese court shall have jurisdiction over the case.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Court Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 157
40. Jurisdiction over Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases Involving Overseas Monopolistic Acts -- Appellants Sweden Ericsson Ltd. and Ericsson (China) Co., Ltd. and Appellees TCL Group Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communications (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huizhou TCL Mobile Communications Co., Ltd. Dispute over Jurisdictional Objection to Disputes over Abuse of Market Dominance by Appellants Sweden Ericsson Ltd. and Ericsson (China) Co., Ltd. and Appellees TCL Group Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communications (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huizhou TCL Mobile Communications Co., Ltd
[Summary of the trial]:
Article 2 of the Anti-Monopoly Law stipulates that: "This Law shall apply to monopolistic acts outside the territory of the People's Republic of China that have an impact on the elimination or restriction of competition in the domestic market." The above provisions clarify the principle of extraterritorial application of the Anti-Monopoly Law. At the same time, the above-mentioned provisions also indicate that the jurisdiction of monopoly dispute cases may be the jurisdictional link point where the alleged monopolistic act excludes or restricts the impact of competition. Article 4 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Acts stipulates that: "The territorial jurisdiction of monopoly civil dispute cases shall be determined in accordance with the jurisdiction of the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations on tort disputes, contract disputes, etc., according to the specific circumstances of the case. ”
In this case, TCL filed a lawsuit claiming that Ericsson had committed monopoly torts such as unfair and excessively high pricing, discriminatory pricing, and abuse of the right to request an injunction, which had the effect of eliminating or restricting competition and causing economic losses to TCL in the Chinese market, and the Chinese court had jurisdiction over this.
Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that: "A lawsuit arising from infringement shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is domiciled. Article 24 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that: "The place of infringement as provided for in Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Law includes the place where the infringement is committed and the place where the result of the infringement occurs. Accordingly, the people's court at the place where the alleged infringement was committed, the place where the infringement occurred, and the place where the defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction over monopoly civil dispute cases.
In jurisdictional objection cases, the people's court only needs to hear the facts related to the establishment of the jurisdictional nexus of the case. If the facts related to the establishment of the case jurisdictional nexus also involve the substantive dispute of the case, it is sufficient to review whether the preliminary evidence of the case can prove an arguable jurisdictional nexus facts, and generally no clear determination is made on the substantive dispute of the case.
Whether a party is qualified shall be judged in light of the specific circumstances of the case whether it is a circumstance that should be reviewed, and if the suitability of a party does not affect the people's court's exercise of jurisdiction over the case, issues related to its suitability may be reviewed at the substantive trial stage.
If a party becomes a connecting point for determining jurisdiction, and whether it is qualified directly affects the jurisdiction of the people's court receiving the lawsuit over the case, the issue of whether the party is qualified should be reviewed at the stage of objection to jurisdiction.
In general, under normal circumstances, only preliminary evidence is required to prove the formal relevance of the parties to the facts involved in the case, that is, to the extent that they can be argued, and there is no need to review the substantive content.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Court Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 32
41. Guiding Case No. 223: Zhang Moulong v. Beijing XX Butterfly Culture Communication Co., Ltd., Cheng X, and Ma X for infringement of the right to disseminate information on the network of works
[Summary of the trial]:
The place where the infringement of the right of information network dissemination of a work occurs is uncertain and should not be used as a basis for determining jurisdiction. When determining the jurisdiction of civil disputes over cases of infringement of the right of information network transmission of works, the provisions of article 15 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Infringement of the Right of Information Network Transmission" shall be applied, that is, the people's court at the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is domiciled shall have jurisdiction.
Case Number: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 42
42. Reference case: A transportation facility company v. a new energy technology company in a dispute over confirmation of non-infringement of patent rights
[Summary of the trial]:
To confirm that a lawsuit for non-infringement of patent rights is an infringement of intellectual property rights, the connection point of territorial jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The "infringement" in a non-infringement lawsuit should be understood as the alleged infringement of the patent by the warned person, and correspondingly, the place of infringement in such a lawsuit, which is the connection point of territorial jurisdiction, should refer to the place where the alleged infringement of the patent right of the warned person was carried out and the place where the results occurred.
Case No.: :(2019) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 365
43. Reference case: Chongqing Yubei Branch of an enterprise management company in Nanchang v. Liu, a dispute over the right of recovery
[Summary of the trial]:
Although the "plaintiff" cannot be specifically determined at the time of signing the contract, it is clear that the "plaintiff" should be the subject of the contract and the "plaintiff's domicile" should be limited to the original creditor's domicile or the debtor's domicile according to the principle of privity of contract. After the assignment of the contract, if the assignee of the contract sues the debtor, the essence of the lawsuit is to exercise the original creditor's right to claim against the debtor, and the domicile of the assignee of the contract cannot be interpreted as the "domicile of the plaintiff" as agreed in the contract.
Case No.: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 20
44. Reference case: XX Company v. Zhao et al., a dispute over infringement of design patent rights
[Summary of the trial]:
When a plaintiff joins multiple defendants, it usually conducts a formal examination of whether there is prima facie evidence to prove that the defendant has a certain connection with the facts involved in the case, and the jurisdictional connection point can be determined, and the people's court does not need to review whether the defendant has committed infringement and bears civil liability.
Case No.: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 91
45. Reference case: A chemical technology company v. the bankruptcy administrator of a chemical company in Shanxi, a chemical technology company in Yuncheng, and Chen in a dispute over infringement of technical secrets
[Summary of the trial]:
In the case where the trial court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the case, there was no premise for the application of the principle of constant jurisdiction. Where new facts arise thereafter that might give the original trial court jurisdiction, jurisdiction shall be determined on the basis of the new facts.
Case Number: :(2020) Supreme Court Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 68
46. Reference case: Shenzhen Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Low Carbon Technology Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of utility model patents
[Summary of the trial]:
If the allegedly infringing product is a part of another product, and the use of the other product also realizes the use value of the allegedly infringing product as a part, the use also constitutes the use of the allegedly infringing parts and components, which can be used as a link point to determine the jurisdiction of the case.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 201
47. Reference case: Beijing Space Exhibition Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Thin Film Power Generation Co., Ltd., a decoration contract dispute
[Summary of the trial]:
The construction contract disputes provided for in Article 28 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law are not limited to the fourth-level cause of action under "construction project contract disputes" under the "Construction Project Contract Disputes" in the Provisions on the Causes of Action of Civil Cases, but also include disputes over the priority right to compensation of construction project prices, construction project subcontract disputes, construction project supervision contract disputes, decoration contract disputes and other disputes related to construction projects. Therefore, if the parties have a dispute over the performance of the decoration contract, the jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the real estate dispute.
Case Number: :(2020) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 93
48. Reference case: A Chinese mobile communications company and its Shenzhen branch v. a Luxembourg company and its Hong Kong subsidiary for abuse of market dominance
[Summary of the trial]:
Where a party files a lawsuit due to losses suffered by an overseas monopolistic act in China, the place where the alleged foreign monopolistic act has an impact on the elimination or restriction of competition in China's domestic market may be the link point for the jurisdiction of the case.
Case Number: :(2020) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 392
49. Reference case: A bureau of China Railway v. Siping Company A, Siping Company B, and a construction headquarters of China Railway Shenyang Bureau
[Summary of the trial]:
"Railway ancillary facilities" refers to the equipment and facilities attached to the railway, as well as the buildings and structures dedicated to the railway, and the purpose of their existence is to protect and maintain the railway and to serve the safety and smooth operation of railway transportation. Although the highway and bridge project is straddling on the railway, there is no dependency relationship with the railway and its ancillary facilities, and it is neither the property of the railway, nor does it serve the railway transportation and railway safety, and it is not the auxiliary facilities of the railway, and the resulting disputes over the construction contract of the construction project do not fall within the special jurisdiction of the railway transport court, and shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the people's court where the immovable property is located in accordance with the provisions of Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
[Case Number] :(2023) Ji Min Zhi Zhong No. 10
50. Reference case: Asia-Pacific Holdings Co., Ltd. et al. v. Xinjiang XX Management Consulting Co., Ltd. et al., arbitration proceedings
[Summary of the trial]:
If the parties to the tort lawsuit are beyond the scope of the parties to the contract, if the tort lawsuit is an ordinary joint lawsuit, the subject matter of the lawsuit is separable, and the arbitration clause only binds the parties to the contract; if the tort lawsuit is a necessary joint lawsuit and the subject matter of the lawsuit is inseparable, although there is an arbitration clause between the parties to the contract, the arbitration clause cannot bind the necessary joint tort dispute between the parties to the contract and the non-contract parties, so the people's court has jurisdiction over the tort lawsuit as a whole.
Case Number: :(2018) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 453
51. Reference case: Fang v. Yan, a property dispute after divorce
[Summary of the trial]:
If a divorced Chinese citizen is both residing abroad and only files a lawsuit for the division of domestic property, and in the course of the litigation, the main property involved in the case has been sold, and the trial of the case involves the acquisition of the original ownership of the main property, the change of the transaction, etc., and the trial of the case is more conducive to ascertaining the facts by the people's court where the main property is located, so the people's court at the place where the main property is located should have jurisdiction.
Case No.: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 74
52. Reference case: Ningbo Instrument Company v. Hangzhou Instrument Company Infringement Utility Model Patent Dispute Case
[Summary of the trial]:
<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application stipulates that the infringement of information network as the link point of jurisdiction refers to the infringement carried out in its entirety on the information network; if only part of the infringement is committed online, it does not constitute the above-mentioned information network infringement, and the provisions of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation cannot be applied to determine jurisdiction.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Law Zhimin Zhi Zhong No. 13
53. Reference case: A management consulting company in Xinjiang sued a space management company in Shanghai for a dispute over liability for damage caused by an application for property preservation
[Summary of the trial]:
The Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Issue of Jurisdiction over Disputes over Liability for Property Preservation Damage in Litigation stipulates that the people's court that made the ruling on property preservation in litigation shall have jurisdiction over disputes over liability for property preservation in litigation. Although the reply does not involve the preservation of acts in litigation, the measures for the preservation of acts in litigation and the measures for property preservation in litigation are both stipulated in Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and there is no difference in the purpose and efficacy of the two systems. Therefore, in cases of disputes over liability for damages arising from the preservation of acts in litigation, the spirit of the above-mentioned reply may be applied to determine the court with jurisdiction over the case.
Case No.: :(2020) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 3
54. If the place of registration of the company is inconsistent with the place of business, how to determine the jurisdiction?
[Summary of the trial]:
When a company registers its subject information with the registration authority, its domicile is one of the matters required to be registered, and the company's choice of where to register its domicile is a civil act with legal consequences. The registration department will publicize the information submitted by the company to the outside world, and the public will also have reasonable trust in the legal person registration information issued by the registration department exercising public power of market regulation on behalf of the state. Articles 64 and 65 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law stipulate that "if there is a change in the registered items during the existence of a legal person, an application shall be made to the registration authority for a change in registration", and "if the actual situation of a legal person is inconsistent with the registered matters, it shall not be opposed to a bona fide third party". Therefore, there is a legal basis for using the domicile registered by the legal person with the market regulation registration department as the basis for determining the territorial jurisdiction link point of civil litigation. It is permissible by law for a party to a contract to determine the domicile of a legal person based on its reliance on the registration information of the legal person published by the registration department, and then to determine the competent court to seek judicial relief when a contract dispute arises with the legal person, which is also the proper meaning of civil activities that should follow the principle of good faith.
<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application stipulates: "Where the location of the principal office of a legal person or other organization cannot be determined, the place of registration or registration of the legal person or other organization shall be the place of domicile. "According to this article, when determining the territorial jurisdiction link point according to the domicile of the legal person, the location of the legal person's principal office shall be preferred, and only when the location of the principal office cannot be determined, the place of registration shall be determined as its domicile, and then the territorial jurisdiction link point shall be determined.
Article 63 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law stipulates that: "A legal person shall be domiciled at the place where its principal office is located. Where it is necessary to register as a legal person in accordance with law, the location of the main administrative office shall be registered as the domicile. Articles 9, 12, 26 and 29 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Company Registration further clearly stipulate that "the registration items of a company include...... (2) Domicile: ......"The domicile of the company is the location of the company's main office. There can only be one domicile of a company registered with the company registration authority. The domicile of the company shall be within the jurisdiction of the company registration authority", "If the company changes the registration matters, it shall apply to the original company registration authority for the change of registration. Without changing the registration, the company shall not change the registration items without authorization", "If the company changes its domicile, it shall apply for the change of registration before moving into the new domicile and submit the certificate of use of the new domicile. If a company changes its domicile across the jurisdiction of the company registration authority, it shall apply to the company registration authority of the place of relocation for change of registration before moving into the new domicile; From the above provisions, it can be seen that when the company handles the registration of the subject information with the registration authority, the domicile is one of the matters required to be registered, and the company's choice of where to register its domicile is a civil act with legal consequences. The company shall meet the following requirements for domicile registration:
First, the domicile of the company must be the place where its principal office is located;
Second, there can only be one domicile of a company registered with the company registration authority;
Third, the domicile of the company shall be within the jurisdiction of its company registration authority.
This means that, on the one hand, the company has a certain degree of autonomy in choosing the content filled in when the market supervision and administration department handles the registration of the company's main matters, and on the other hand, the company should reasonably foresee that once it submits the information it fills in (such as domicile information) to the registration department, the latter will publicize it to the public based on the information submitted, and the public will also have reasonable trust in the legal person registration information issued by the registration department exercising the public power of market regulation on behalf of the state. Articles 64 and 65 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law stipulate that "if there is a change in the registered items during the existence of a legal person, an application shall be made to the registration authority for a change in registration", and "if the actual situation of a legal person is inconsistent with the registered matters, it shall not be opposed to a bona fide third party".
The above-mentioned provisions further indicate that the registration made at the registration authority at the time of the establishment of the company has the effect of public announcement and will generate credibility, and the trust interests of the public in good faith based on the publicity made by the registration authority on the registration matters of the legal person should be protected. Therefore, once the matters originally registered by a legal person change during the period of existence, it shall perform the formalities of changing the registration in accordance with the law, otherwise it shall not confront the relevant public who are bona fide and unaware. In general, the core intent of the above provisions on the registration of the domicile of the company's legal person, the registration of the change of the matter and the related legal consequences is to enhance the transparency of market information, maintain the security of market transactions, and optimize the market business environment, because these are the inherent requirements of the market economy, and the essence of the market economy is, in the final analysis, the credit economy and the rule of law economy. If the information of the initial registration or change of registration of the legal person in the registration department cannot be trusted, the public will inevitably have to investigate whether the various circumstances of the legal person are consistent with the registration information, which will inevitably lead to an increase in social transaction costs and an increase in transaction burden, which obviously does not meet the requirements of a market economy in which market transactions are transparent, standardized, legalized and predictable.
Therefore, there is a legal basis for using the domicile registered by the legal person with the market regulation registration department as the basis for determining the territorial jurisdiction link point of civil litigation. It is permissible by law for a party to a contract to determine the domicile of a legal person based on its reliance on the registration information of the legal person published by the registration department, and then to determine the competent court to seek judicial relief when a contract dispute arises with the legal person, which is also the proper meaning of civil activities that should follow the principle of good faith.
Case No.: :(2020) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 291
55. The place of receipt of online shopping that can be chosen by the online buyer at will is usually not suitable as the place of online sales - Ningbo Oaks Air Conditioning Co., Ltd. and Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. Dispute over infringement of utility model patent
[Summary of the trial]:
If the allegedly infringing product is sold through the Internet, and the jurisdiction of the case is determined based on the place of the alleged sales act of the online seller, the determination of the place of the accused sales act should not only be conducive to the certainty of jurisdiction, avoid the parties from arbitrarily creating jurisdictional connection points, but also facilitate the rights holder's rights protection. In the online environment, in principle, the place of sales includes the place where the online seller is principally operated, the place where the allegedly infringing products are stored, the place where the alleged infringing products are stored, the place where they are shipped or the place where they are sealed and seized, etc., but the place where the online purchaser can choose at will is usually not suitable as the place of online sales. An action in which the manufacturer and seller of the infringing product are jointly defendants constitutes a necessary class action.
Case Number: :(2018) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 93
56. The place of receipt of online shopping that can be chosen by the online purchaser at will is usually not suitable as the place of online sales - Shenzhen Lanhe Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Ku Energy Technology Co., Ltd. Dispute over infringement of utility model patents
[Summary of the trial]:
In the online environment, in principle, the place of sale of patent infringement includes the place of the online seller's principal business, the place of storage, the place of delivery, or the place of seizure and seizure of the allegedly infringing product, which is not subject to the will of the online purchaser, but the place of receipt of the online shopping that the online buyer can choose at will is usually not suitable as the place of online sales. The logistics information involved in the case shows that the alleged infringing products are received by postal express delivery in bulk and through the processing shift, so it can be reasonably inferred that the place of shipment of the alleged infringing products is the place where the infringing products are sold, and the people's court may determine the jurisdiction link point accordingly.
Case Number: :(2021) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 126
57. The place where the online purchaser can choose at will is usually not suitable as the place for online sales——Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. and Nantong Tongzhou Xintianhe Garment Co., Ltd. Dispute over infringement of utility model patent
[Summary of the trial]:
In the online environment, the place of sales in patent dispute cases in principle includes the place of the online seller's principal business, the place of storage, the place of delivery, or the place of seizure and seizure of the alleged infringing product, which is not subject to the will of the online purchaser, and the place where the online purchaser can choose at will is usually not suitable as the place of online sales, and cannot be used as the place of infringement in a patent infringement case and is used as the basis for determining jurisdiction.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Court Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 36
58. The place of receipt of online shopping should not be used as the jurisdiction place for intellectual property infringement cases - Guangdong Manel Garment Co., Ltd., Zhou, Nanjing Oriental Mall Co., Ltd. and New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd. Jurisdiction Objection Case of Unfair Competition Dispute
[Summary of the trial]:
In a case of infringement of intellectual property rights and unfair competition, although the parties obtain the allegedly infringing products through online shopping, although the form is no different from "entering into a sales contract by means of information network", the infringement claims made by the parties are not only against this specific product, but all products that contain specific rights; Therefore, if the plaintiff purchases the allegedly infringing product through online shopping, it is not appropriate to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the case based on the place of receipt of the online shopping. This case is not a necessary joint action, and the parties do not agree to hear it as a joint action, and the case shall be tried separately.
Case Number: :(2016) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 107
59. In the case of Internet lending disputes, there must be evidence to prove that there is an actual connection between the place where the contract is signed and the place where the contract is performed must be determined, otherwise the court with jurisdiction over the case cannot be determined - Guo Mouming v. Chongqing Du Xiaoman Microfinance Co., Ltd. and other small loan contract disputes
[Summary of the trial]:
In Internet lending disputes, the lender is specific and the borrower is not specific, and there is a wide range of situations. Although the agreement to choose the jurisdiction of the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing Municipality was expressly agreed upon by the parties in the contract involved in the case, in the absence of evidence to prove that Haidian District of Beijing had an actual connection with the dispute in this case, if it was determined that the People's Court of Haidian District of Beijing was the competent court in this case, it would inevitably cause a large number of cases to enter the agreed court through the jurisdiction of the agreement, disrupting the normal order of civil litigation jurisdiction, so the jurisdiction clause of the agreement involved in the case was invalid. Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that a lawsuit arising from a contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the defendant is domiciled or where the contract is performed. Du Xiaoman's domicile is located in Beibei District, Chongqing, and the People's Court of Beibei District, Chongqing Municipality is the competent court in this case. The Beibei District People's Court of Chongqing Municipality improperly transferred a case with jurisdiction to the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing, and this court corrected it.
Case Number: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 27
60. If the place of signing is inconsistent with the actual place of signing the contract, it shall be determined as the place where the contract is signed according to the agreement, except for the circumstance of deliberately circumventing mandatory or prohibitive legal norms - a loan contract dispute between Jinsheng Group and others and Shenzhen Ping An Company
[Summary of the trial]:
Article 4 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court <中华人民共和国合同法>on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Contract stipulates that if a contract is concluded in written form, and the place where the contract is signed is inconsistent with the place where the contract is actually signed or sealed, the people's court shall determine that the place where the contract is signed is the place where the contract is signed. Accordingly, regardless of whether the Cooperation Framework Agreement was actually signed in Nanjing, the people's court should determine that the place where the Agreement was signed was Futian District, Shenzhen. The Cooperation Framework Agreement stipulates that disputes arising from the agreement shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the contract is signed, which does not violate the provisions of the law, and the court of first instance has jurisdiction over the case on this basis.
Case Number: :(2019) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 110
61. Can the parties choose the jurisdiction of the people's court in a place outside the scope of jurisdiction listed and which has an actual connection with the dispute?
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that this provision gives the parties to a contract the right to choose the jurisdiction of the people's court where the dispute has actual connection with the dispute by written agreement, and although it is clarified by way of enumeration that the people's court of "the place where the defendant is domiciled, the place where the contract is performed, the place where the contract is signed, the place where the plaintiff is domiciled, and the place where the subject matter is located" is within the scope of jurisdiction that the parties can choose, the word "etc" is also used to indicate that the parties can also choose the jurisdiction of the people's court in other places other than the above-mentioned five places that have an actual connection with the dispute. This provision gives the parties more choice under the necessary guidance and restrictions on the "place where the dispute is actually connected", and is intended to fully respect the autonomy of the parties in choosing the competent court.
Case No.: :(2018) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 144
62. To determine whether the agreement on two or more courts of jurisdiction is valid, it is necessary to examine whether the agreed jurisdiction has an actual connection with the dispute, and if there is an actual connection, both are valid.
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that the contract involved in the case stipulated that "if a dispute arises between the two parties during the performance of the contract, the two parties shall resolve it through negotiation, and if no agreement can be reached, it may be submitted to the people's court with jurisdiction of either party for litigation resolution." According to the second paragraph of Article 30 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, the agreement is legal and valid.
Case Number: :(2021) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 405
63. How to determine the connection point of territorial jurisdiction in litigation to confirm non-infringement of patent rights -- Nanjing Lantai Transportation Facilities Co., Ltd. and Dizhou New Energy Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. confirmed the dispute of non-infringement of patent rights
[Summary of the trial]:
To confirm that a non-infringement lawsuit is an intellectual property infringement lawsuit, the territorial jurisdiction connection point shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Law. The "infringement" in a lawsuit to confirm non-infringement of patent rights should be understood as the alleged act of infringing the patent right, and correspondingly, the place of infringement in such a lawsuit, which is the connection point of territorial jurisdiction, shall refer to the place where the alleged act of patent infringement is carried out and the place where the results of the alleged infringement of the patent right occur.
The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that this case was a territorial jurisdiction dispute arising from a dispute over confirmation of non-infringement of patent rights, and the focus was on whether the original trial court had jurisdiction over the case. The purpose of the system for non-infringement litigation is to provide judicial relief to the warned person who has fallen into uneasiness due to a warning from the patentee, and to determine whether the technical solution implemented by the warned person infringes the patent right of another person through the trial of the non-infringement lawsuit, so that the warned person can be freed from the state of unrest as soon as possible and make appropriate decisions for subsequent production and operation. It can be seen that the core of a lawsuit to confirm non-infringement of patent rights is still to determine whether the act of the warned person infringes the patent rights of others, which is closely related to patent infringement litigation, and territorial jurisdiction can be determined with reference to the provisions on the connection point of territorial jurisdiction in patent infringement cases. Confirm the territorial jurisdiction connection point of the non-infringement lawsuit, including the place where the infringement is carried out and the place where the infringement result occurs. The "infringement" in a lawsuit to confirm non-infringement of patent rights shall refer to the suspected infringement of patent rights by the person being warned. Correspondingly, the place of infringement as the connection point of territorial jurisdiction in a non-infringement lawsuit shall refer to the place where the warning party is suspected of infringing the patent right and the place where the results of the alleged infringement of the patent right occur. In the trial stage of jurisdictional objections, the people's court is in principle only required to hear the facts related to the establishment of the case jurisdictional connection point. Where the facts related to the establishment of the jurisdictional connection point also involve the substantive dispute of the case, it is only necessary to examine whether the preliminary evidence of the case can prove to be an arguable fact of the jurisdictional connection point, and generally no clear determination is made on the substantive dispute of the case. In this case, the Appellee, the patentee, in a warning letter issued to the Appellant's client, alleged that the Appellant had committed the infringement of manufacturing and selling products that infringed its patent rights. On the one hand, since the Appellant's domicile is located in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, it can be determined that the Appellant has carried out an arguable act of manufacturing the allegedly infringing products in his place of residence, i.e., Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, and on the other hand, the facts revealed in the second examination also preliminarily prove that the Appellant has carried out an arguable act of selling the allegedly infringing products in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province. Therefore, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province, can be used as the territorial jurisdiction connection point for this case. Although the Appellee's domicile is located in Shanghai, which is also one of the territorial jurisdictional connection points in this case, according to Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Law, which stipulates that "the plaintiff may file a lawsuit with one of the people's courts where two or more people's courts have jurisdiction", the Appellant's choice to file the lawsuit in the people's court of the place where the infringement occurred, i.e., the court of first instance, was an expression of his exercise of the right of litigation disposition and was in accordance with the law.
Case No.: :(2019) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhi Zhong No. 365
64. In the case of the assignment of creditor's rights, if the transferee of the creditor's rights files a lawsuit against the debtor, how to determine the "location of the plaintiff" or "the location of the party receiving the currency"? Whether the court where the transferee of the creditor's rights is located has jurisdiction ?—— ruling on the civil designation of jurisdiction jurisdiction over the dispute over the right of recovery of Nanchang Lywin Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Chongqing Yubei Branch Company, and Li
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that this case was a dispute over the right of recovery. <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>Article 33 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application stipulates that "where a contract is transferred, the jurisdiction agreement of the contract shall be effective against the transferee of the contract, unless the transferee is not aware of the existence of the jurisdiction agreement at the time of the transfer, or the transfer agreement is otherwise agreed upon and the original contract counterparty agrees." ”…… Under the circumstance that Nanchang Lexicon Chongqing Yubei Branch did not assert the rights involved in the case without knowing that there was a jurisdiction agreement or that the transfer agreement was otherwise agreed in the transfer agreement and the original contract counterparty agreed, the stipulation in the Financial Information Intermediary Service Agreement involved in the case that "the dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the plaintiff is located" is valid for Nanchang Lexicon Chongqing Yubei Branch. Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "the parties to a dispute over contracts or other property rights and interests may, by written agreement, choose the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the defendant is domiciled, the place where the contract is performed, the place where the contract is signed, the place where the plaintiff is domiciled, the place where the subject matter is located, and other places that have an actual connection with the dispute, provided that the provisions of this Law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction are not violated." In this case, the stipulation in the Financial Information Intermediary Service Agreement signed between the Financial Finance Company and Mr. Li that "the dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the plaintiff is located" is an expression of the true intention of the parties and does not violate the provisions of the law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction, and should be found to be legal and valid. Among them, when the "Financial Information Intermediary Service Agreement" was signed, although the "plaintiff" could not be specifically determined, it was clear that the "plaintiff" here should be the subject of the contract, namely Branch Finance Company and Li. Nanchang Lvying Chongqing Yubei Branch, as the assignee of the creditor's rights of Jike Financial Company against Li, the essence of the lawsuit was to exercise the right of claim of Jike Financial Company against Li, because the domicile of Jike Financial Company was located in Yangpu District, Shanghai, and the People's Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai was the competent court in this case. The Chongqing Yubei District People's Court's transfer of the case to the Taiyuan Xiaodian District People's Court was improperly handled, and this court corrected it.
Case No.: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 18
65. Determination of the connection point of jurisdiction - Aoguang Animation Co., Ltd. v. Zhao Hongcai, Shantou Chenghai District Bameier Toy Factory, Shantou Chenghai District Xingzhimei Toys Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court pointed out that if a plaintiff sues multiple defendants together, there is usually prima facie evidence to prove that the defendant has a certain connection with the facts involved in the case to determine the jurisdictional connection point, and the people's court does not need to review whether the defendant has constituted infringement and bears civil liability.
Case No.: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 91
66. A branch of an enterprise legal person with a certain amount of working capital and carrying out trading business within the approved business scope has the capacity to be a party, and its domicile can be used as the basis for determining jurisdiction -- Tiantong Securities Co., Ltd., Jianxingyuan Co., Ltd., and Tiantong Securities Shenzhen Business Department Securities Securities Dispute Jurisdiction Dispute Jurisdictional Objection
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that the Shenzhen Business Department of Tiantong Securities is a branch of Tiantong Securities, although it is not a legal person, it is established in accordance with the law and has obtained an industrial and commercial business license, has a certain amount of operating capital and the ability to carry out securities trading and other businesses within the approved business scope, and belongs to other organizations stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and can be a party to civil litigation. As a party to the contract dispute in this case, the Shenzhen Business Department of Tiantong Securities is the defendant in the plaintiff's lawsuit for direct civil liability, and its industrial and commercial registered domicile is Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, and the High People's Court of Guangdong Province has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with the law.
67. If a client files a civil lawsuit against the securities business department on the grounds of infringement, the people's court at the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is domiciled shall have jurisdiction over the infringement dispute between Century Securities Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Housing Provident Fund Management Center, Tianjin Century Avenue Business Department of Century Securities Co., Ltd., Tianjin Securities Trading Business Department of China Tourism International Trust and Investment Co., Ltd., and China Tourism International Trust and Investment Co., Ltd
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that if a customer opens an account with the business department of a securities company to invest, the securities company and its business department not only have the obligation to properly keep the funds and securities in the customer's capital account as agreed in the contract, but also bear the statutory obligation to properly keep them. When the securities or funds in the customer's account are misappropriated by the securities business department, the customer has the right to choose the cause of action for breach of contract or infringement to file a civil lawsuit. In this case, due to the misappropriation of the treasury bonds in the capital account of the CTS business department, the Tianjin High People's Court has jurisdiction over this case against the relevant defendants such as the CTS business department and the Tianjin High People's Court where the CTS business department is located on the grounds of infringement, and according to Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law, "the lawsuit filed for infringement shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the infringement occurred or the place where the defendant is domiciled".
68. After the case is tried in court, unless it is found that the accepted case violates the provisions of the law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction, the case shall not be transferred on the grounds that it does not have general territorial jurisdiction - Yang Jun, Yunnan Qiankun City Investment and Development Co., Ltd., and other unjust enrichment disputes
[Summary of the trial]:
The Supreme People's Court held that <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>Article 35 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application provides that if a party fails to respond to the lawsuit after the expiration of the period for making a defense, and the people's court discovers that the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of that court before the trial of the first instance begins, it shall rule to transfer the case to the people's court with jurisdiction. Judging from the above provisions, the people's court accepting the case discovers that the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of that court, and shall transfer the case to the people's court with jurisdiction before the trial begins; In this case, the People's Court of Nanming District, Guiyang City, as the people's court of the domicile of the defendants Guizhou Dadi Construction Group Investment Co., Ltd. and Guizhou Henderson Huarong Venture Capital Co., Ltd., has general territorial jurisdiction over the case, and its acceptance of the case does not violate the provisions of the law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction. In the case that the trial has already been held, the Nanming District People's Court of Guiyang City ruled that the transfer of the case to the Changning County People's Court of Baoshan City was improper, and this court corrected it.
Case Number: :(2022) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction No. 73
69. Whether the agreement between the parties to have jurisdiction over the jurisdiction of the court of one party's "location" rather than "domicile" is an invalid clause -- a corporate loan dispute between the appellant LeTV Mobile Intelligent Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and the appellee Shanghai Leyu Venture Capital Management Center (Limited Partnership), the defendant Jia Mouting and LeTV Holdings (Beijing) Co., Ltd. in the first instance
[Summary of the trial]:
I. According to Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Law, the place selected by the parties in the jurisdiction agreement shall be the place where the defendant is domiciled, the place where the contract is performed, the place where the contract is signed, the place where the plaintiff is domiciled, the place where the subject matter is located, and other places that have actual connection with the dispute.
II. On the issue of whether the jurisdiction of the court at the "location" of one party as agreed by the parties is clear, according to Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, which stipulates that "the domicile of a citizen refers to the place where the citizen's household registration is located, and the domicile of a legal person or other organization refers to the place where the main office of the legal person or other organization is located", the meaning of "location" is no different from that of "domicile". Therefore, the parties' claim that the "location" is an unclear agreement should be invalid, which lacks legal basis and should not be supported.
After examination, the Supreme People's Court held that Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "the parties to a dispute over contracts or other property rights and interests may agree in writing to choose the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the defendant is domiciled, the place where the contract is performed, the place where the contract is signed, the place where the plaintiff is domiciled, and the place where the subject matter is located, but shall not violate the provisions of this Law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction." Accordingly, the place selected by the parties in the jurisdiction agreement shall be the place where the defendant is domiciled, the place where the contract is performed, the place where the contract is signed, the place where the plaintiff is domiciled, the place where the subject matter is located, and other places that have an actual connection with the dispute. In this case, the Repayment Agreement and Supplementary Agreement entered into between Leyu Pioneer Center as a creditor and the main debtor LeTV Mobile Company, the Equity Pledge Contract signed with the pledgee LeTV Holding Company, and the Guarantee Contract signed with the guarantor Jia Yueting and LeTV Holding Company all clearly stipulate that the court at the place where Leyu Pioneer Center is domiciled or located shall have jurisdiction in the event of a dispute, which is in accordance with the law. Since the domicile of Leyu Entrepreneurship Center is within the jurisdiction of the Shanghai High People's Court, and the amount of the subject matter in dispute in this case has exceeded 500 million yuan, according to the provisions of the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Adjusting the Standards for the Jurisdiction of the High People's Court and the Intermediate People's Court in the First Instance of Civil and Commercial Cases (Fa Fa [2015] No. 7), this case should be under the jurisdiction of the Shanghai High People's Court. On the issue of whether the "location of the lender" stipulated in the agreement is clear, according to Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>, which stipulates that "the domicile of a citizen refers to the place where the citizen's household registration is located, and the domicile of a legal person or other organization refers to the place where the principal office of the legal person or other organization is located", the meaning of the place of residence is the same as the place of domicile. Therefore, LeEco Mobile's claim that the "location" is an unclear agreement and should be an invalid ground of appeal lacks legal basis and is not supported by this court. The first-instance ruling's determination that the court of first instance has jurisdiction over this case has sufficient factual and legal basis, and this court upholds it.
Case Number: :(2017) Supreme Law Civil Jurisdiction Zhong No. 339
70. Beijing Shengshi Zhaoye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Huangshi Kangsai Group Co., Ltd., Huangshi Kangsai Garment Industry Co., Ltd., and Huangshi Kangsai Co., Ltd
[Summary of the trial]:
The court shall accurately grasp the nature of the dispute to determine the jurisdiction, and the dispute arising from the creditor's right and debt relationship may be a bill dispute, a loan contract dispute or a general debt dispute, and the general debt dispute that does not belong to the bill dispute and the loan contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the defendant is domiciled.
[Case source]: "Case Filing Work Guidance" 2005 Volume 1 (Total Volume 10)
Transferred from the same judgment rule for similar cases
![Fury refused to admit defeat: because Usyk's country was at war, the referee sympathized and awarded him the victory[fig]]()