2022年1-2期最高院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例

一、王钦杰与上海力澄投资管理有限公司、郭睿星等民间借贷纠纷案

Wang Qinjie v. Shanghai Licheng Investment Management Co., Ltd., Guo Ruixing, et al. (case regarding dispute over private lending)

【裁判要旨】

在注册资本认缴制下，公司债务产生后公司以股东(大)会决议或其他方式延长股东出资期限的，债权人以公司不能清偿到期债务为由，请求未届修改后出资期限的股东在未出资范围内对公司不能清偿的债务承担补充赔偿责任的，人民法院应予支持。

[Judgment Abstract]

Where, under the registered capital subscription system, a company extends the term of capital contribution of shareholders by adopting resolutions of the general meeting of the shareholders or by other means after a debt arises, if the creditor pleads to the court that the shareholders whose altered time limit for capital contribution does not expire should bear supplementary compensation liability for the debt beyond the company's capability to pay off within the scope of their non-paid contribution, the people's court should uphold such a claim.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2022年第1期（总第305期）第44-48页

Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 1, 2022 (Total No. 305) Page 44-48

二、华为技术有限公司等与康文森无线许可有限公司确认不侵害专利权及标准必要专利许可纠纷案

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., et al v. Conversant Wireless Licensing S. àr. l. (case regarding dispute over the confirmation of non-infringement of patent rights and licensing of standard-essential patents)

【裁判摘要】

一、对于具有“禁诉令”性质的行为保全申请，人民法院应当依照民事诉讼法第一百条及《最高人民法院关于审查知识产权纠纷行为保全案件适用法律若干问题的规定》第七条的规定予以审查，重点考察被申请人在域外法院起诉或者申请执行域外法院判决对中国诉讼的审理和执行是否会产生实质影响、采取行为保全措施是否符合国际礼让原则等因素。关于被申请人在域外法院起诉或者申请执行域外法院判决对中国诉讼的审理和执行是否会产生实质影响，可以考虑中外诉讼的当事人是否基本相同、审理对象是否存在重叠、被申请人的域外诉讼行为效果是否会对中国诉讼造成干扰等。关于国际礼让原则，可以考虑案件受理时间先后、案件管辖适当与否、对域外法院审理和裁判的影响适度与否等。

二、禁止被申请人为一定行为的行为保全措施具有特殊性，如果被申请人拒不遵守行为保全裁定所确定的不作为义务，违法实施了改变原有状态的行为，则其故意违法行为构成对行为保全裁定的持续性违反和对原有状态的持续性改变，应视为其每日均实施了违法行为，可以视情处以每日罚款并按日累计。

[Judgment Abstract]

First, in case of any application for act preservation of the nature of an “anti-suit injunction,” a people's court should conduct examination in accordance with Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 7 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in Cases Involving the Review of Act Preservation in Intellectual Property Disputes, and take into account factors such as whether the respondent's initiation of an action in an extraterritorial court or its application for enforcement of the extraterritorial court judgment will have a substantial impact on the trial and enforcement of the lawsuit in China, and whether the adoption of the act preservation measures conforms to the principles of international comity. To determine the possibility of these two factors, the people's court should consider whether the parties to the lawsuits in China and overseas are basically the same, whether there is any overlap between the subject matters of trial, and whether the respondent's act of filing the extraterritorial lawsuit interferes with the lawsuit in China, among others. Regarding the principle of international comity, factors to be considered include the time sequence of case acceptance, the appropriateness of case jurisdiction, and the appropriateness of the impact on the trial and judgment of the extraterritorial court, among others.

Second, the act preservation measure that prohibits the respondent from certain acts is of particularity. Where the respondent refuses to comply with its obligation to refrain from certain acts as determined by the act preservation ruling and illegally performs an act of changing the original status, then such an intentional illegal act constitutes a continuous violation of the act preservation ruling and a continuous change to the original status. Therefore, the respondent should be deemed as committing the illegal act each day, in which case the people's court may impose a per diem fine as it sees appropriate and such fine should be accumulated on a daily basis.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2022年第1期（总第305期）第29-36页

Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 1, 2022 (Total No. 305) Page 29-36

三、余姚市甬兴气体分滤厂与余姚市住房和城乡建设局燃气经营许可纠纷案

Yuyao Yongxing Gas Filter Plant v. Housing and Urban-rural Development Bureau of Yuyao City (case regarding dispute over gas business licensing)

【裁判要旨】

具有行政许可权的行政机关作出不予行政许可决定的理由不能成立，且该决定已被人民法院判决撤销并责令重作的情况下，行政机关仍以相同理由再次作出不予行政许可决定，应认定为滥用职权。

[Judgment Abstract]

Where an administrative organ with the power of administrative license decides to disapprove the administrative license based on untenable reasons, and such decision has been revoked by the people's court and ordered to be remade, it should be deemed that the administrative organ abuses its power if it still decides to disapprove the license for the same reasons.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2022年第2期（总第306期）第34-43页

Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 2, 2022 (Total No. 306) Page 34-43

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.410379346

[CLI Code] CLI.C.410379346(EN)