>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Shandong Jufeng Network Co., Ltd. v. Mgame Co., Ltd. of Korea and Tianjin Fengyun Network Technology Co., Ltd. (A case about a challenge to jurisdiction over disputes arising from an online game distribution and license agreement)
山东聚丰网络有限公司与韩国MGAME公司、天津风云网络技术有限公司网络游戏代理及许可合同纠纷管辖权异议案
【法宝引证码】

Shandong Jufeng Network Co., Ltd. v. Mgame Co., Ltd. of Korea and Tianjin Fengyun Network Technology Co., Ltd. (A case about a challenge to jurisdiction over disputes arising from an online game distribution and license agreement)
(A case about a challenge to jurisdiction over disputes arising from an online game distribution and license agreement)
山东聚丰网络有限公司与韩国MGAME公司、天津风云网络技术有限公司网络游戏代理及许可合同纠纷管辖权异议案

Shandong Jufeng Network Co., Ltd. v. Mgame Co., Ltd. of Korea and Tianjin Fengyun Network Technology Co., Ltd.
(A case about a challenge to jurisdiction over disputes arising from an online game distribution and license agreement)

 

山东聚丰网络有限公司与韩国MGAME公司、天津风云网络技术有限公司网络游戏代理及许可合同纠纷管辖权异议案


 
[裁判摘要]

 
中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百四十五条规定:“涉外合同的当事人可以选择处理合同争议所适用的法律,法律另有规定的除外。涉外合同的当事人没有选择的,适用与合同有最密切联系的国家的法律。”《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百四十二条规定:“涉外合同或者涉外财产权益纠纷的当事人,可以用书面协议选择与争议有实际联系的地点的法院管辖。选择中华人民共和国人民法院管辖的,不得违反本法关于级别管辖和专属管辖的规定。”最高人民法院《关于审理涉外民事或商事合同纠纷案件法律适用若干问题的规定》第一条规定:“涉外民事或商事合同应适用的法律,是指有关国家或地区的实体法,不包括冲突法和程序法。”据此,涉外合同的当事人协议选择适用法律与协议选择管辖法院是两个截然不同的法律行为,应当根据相关法律规定分别判断其效力。对于协议选择管辖法院条款的效力,应当依据法院地法进行判断,与准据法所属国的法律规定无关。前述《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百四十二条的规定属于授权性规范,而非指示性规范,即按照我国现行法律规定,对于涉外合同或者涉外财产权益纠纷案件当事人协议选择管辖法院的问题,仍应当坚持书面形式和实际联系原则。

Supreme People's Court

 
最高人民法院

Civil Ruling
 
民事裁定书

(No.4 [2009], Final, Civil Division III)
 
(2009)民三终字第4号

BASIC FACTS
 

Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Mgame Co., Ltd. of Korea, domiciled at: JEI Platz 8, 459-11, Gasan-dong, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, 153-803, the Republic of Korea.
 
上诉人(原审被告):韩国MGAME公司(MGAME CORPORATION)。

Legal representative: Kweon Yi Hyung, Chief Executive Officer of this company.
 
法定代表人:权彝衡(Kweon Yi Hyung),首席执行官。

Attorney: Wang Yaxi, lawyer of Beijing King & Wood Law Firm.
 
委托代理人:王亚西,北京市金杜律师事务所律师。

Attorney: He Wei, lawyer of Beijing King & Wood Law Firm.
 
委托代理人:何薇,北京市金杜律师事务所律师。

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): Shandong Jufeng Network Co., Ltd., domiciled at: Suite 1102, 11/F, Tower B, Sanqing Century Fortune Center, 359 Xinyu Road, Gaoxin District, Jinan City, Shandong Province.
 
被上诉人(原审原告):山东聚丰网络有限公司。

Legal representative: Liu Guanjin, Chairman of the Board of Directors of this company.
 
法定代表人:刘观进,董事长。

Authorized representative: Tian Jueci, deputy general manager of this company.
 
委托代理人:田厥慈,该公司副总经理。

Authorized representative: Lu Guangzhou, deputy general manager of the company.
 
委托代理人:陆广洲,该公司副总经理。

Third party in the original trial: Tianjin Fengyun Network Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at Torch Hi-Tech Park, 2 Wuhua Road, Nankai District, Tianjin City, the People's Republic of China.
 
原审第三人:天津风云网络技术有限公司。

Legal representative: Bao Jiandong, Chairman of the Board of Directors of this company.
 
法定代表人:鲍建东,董事长。

Authorized representative: Ren Yanli, Chief Executive Officer of this company.
 
委托代理人:任燕莉,该公司行政总监。

PROCEDURAL POSTURE
 

In Shandong Jufeng Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jufeng Company”) v. Mgame Co., Ltd. of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Mgame Company”) and Tianjin Fengyun Network Technology Co., Ltd. (a third party, hereinafter referred to as “Fengyun Company”) about disputes over an online game distribution and license agreement, Mgame Company appealed to this Court against a civil ruling (No. 1 [2008] Civil Division III, Shandong HPC) dated January 12, 2009 of the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province on a challenge to jurisdiction. This Court legally formed a collegial panel, and held court on March 25, 2009. Wang Yaxi and He Wei, attorneys of the appellant, Mgame Company; Tian Jueci and Lu Guangzhou, authorized representatives of the appellee, Jufeng Company; and Ren Yanli, authorized representative of the third party, Fengyun Company, were present in court. None of the parties applied for disqualification during trial. So far, the trial of this case has concluded.
 
原审原告山东聚丰网络有限公司(以下简称聚丰网络公司)与原审被告韩国 MGAME公司(MGAME CORPORATION,以下简称MGAME公司)、原审第三人天津风云网络技术有限公司(以下简称风云网络公司)网络游戏代理及许可合同纠纷管辖权异议一案,MGAME公司不服中华人民共和国山东省高级人民法院于2009年 1月12日作出的(2008)鲁民三初字第1号民事裁定,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭,于2009年3月25日公开开庭审理了本案,上诉人MGAME公司委托代理人王亚西、何薇,被上诉人聚丰网络公司委托代理人田厥慈、陆广洲,原审第三人风云网络公司委托代理人任燕莉到庭参加诉讼。审理中,当事人均未提出回避申请。本案现已审理终结。

On July 30, 2008, Jufeng Company lodged a lawsuit with the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province against Mgame Company as the defendant and Fengyun Company as the third party, requesting the court to order the defendant to: (1) continue to perform the Exclusive Game Distribution and License Agreement signed by both parties on March 10, 2005; (2) compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 33,498,272.41 yuan; and (3) assume all the litigation costs for this case.
 
聚丰网络公司以MGAME公司为被告、以风云网络公司为第三人,于2008年 7月30日向山东省高级人民法院提起诉讼,请求判令:1.被告继续履行双方于 2005年3月10日签订的《独家游戏代理及许可协议》;2.被告赔偿原告33498272.41元的经济损失;3.被告承担本案全部诉讼费用。

After the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province accepted the case, the defendant, Mgame Company, challenged the jurisdiction of the court during the period of submitting a statement of defense, mainly on the grounds that: Article 21 of the Game License Agreement signed by both parties on March 25, 2005 provided that “This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the People's Republic of China. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be finally settled in Singapore, and all disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Singapore.” Therefore, both parties had clearly agreed to submit disputes arising from this Agreement to a court in Singapore, which represented the true will of them. This case should be heard by a court having jurisdiction in Singapore, and the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province did not have jurisdiction over this case. The defendant requested the court to dismiss the complaint of Jufeng Company.
 
山东省高级人民法院受理本案后,被告MGAME公司在提交答辩状期间对管辖权提出异议。其主要理由是:原被告双方 2005年3月25日签订的《游戏许可协议》第21条约定:“本协议应当受中国法律管辖并根据中国法律解释。由本协议产生或与本协议相关的所有的争议应当在新加坡最终解决,且所有本协议产生的争议应当接受新加坡的司法管辖。”因此,将由本协议引起的争议提交新加坡司法机构管辖是双方当事人的明确约定,是双方真实意思表示,本案应由新加坡有管辖权的法院审理,山东省高级人民法院对本案没有管辖权。故,请求驳回聚丰网络公司的起诉。

Upon examination, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province held that: This case was about foreign-related disputes over intellectual property. According to Article 21 of the Game License Agreement signed on March 25, 2005 by Jufeng Company and Mgame Company, all disputes arising therefrom should be subject to the jurisdiction of Singapore, but they also agreed that “This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the People's Republic of China.” Chinese law was chosen by both parties as the governing law of this Agreement. So, the choice of court agreement of both parties must also conform to the relevant provisions of the chosen governing law, i.e. the law of the People's Republic of China. Article 242 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China provided that “The parties having disputes over a foreign-related contract or any foreign-related property right may reach a written agreement to choose a court located in a place that has an actual connection with their disputes as the court to exercise jurisdiction over their disputes ...” Hence, a court having jurisdiction chosen by both parties should have an actual connection with the case. The jurisdiction in this case as agreed on by Jufeng Company and Mgame Company was neither the place of residence of either party nor the place of signing or performance of the game license agreement at issue or the place of occurrence of disputes. So, the jurisdiction chosen by both parties had nothing to do with the disputes in this case, and was beyond the restriction about an actual connection with the disputes. The choice of court agreement of both parties should be invalid. The Higher People's Court of Shandong Province was located at the place where the plaintiff, Jufeng Company, was domiciled, and had an actual connection with this case. Given that the choice of court agreement of both parties was invalid, this court's exercise of jurisdiction over this case was proper and in line with the provisions of Chinese law. In accordance with Articles 38 and 242 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province ruled that: Mgame Company's challenge to jurisdiction over this case should be dismissed and Mgame Company should bear the case acceptance fee of 50 yuan.
 
山东省高级人民法院经审查认为:本案为涉外知识产权纠纷,虽然原告聚丰网络公司与被告MGAME公司于2005年3月25日签订的《游戏许可协议》第21条约定产生的争议应当接受新加坡的司法管辖,但是双方同时约定“本协议应当受中国法律管辖并根据中国法律解释”,双方在协议适用法律上选择中国法律为准据法。因此,双方协议管辖条款也必须符合选择的准据法即中国法律的有关规定。《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百四十二条规定:“涉外合同或者涉外财产权益纠纷的当事人,可以用书面协议选择与争议有实际联系的地点的法院管辖。……”。据此,当事人选择的管辖法院应限定在与争议案件有实际联系的范围内。而本案聚丰网络公司与 MGAME公司协议约定的管辖地新加坡,既不是双方当事人的住所地,也不是本案游戏许可协议的签订地、履行地、争议发生地,所以与本案争议无任何联系,其约定超出了与争议有实际联系的限定范围,该约定管辖应属无效。山东省高级人民法院为原告聚丰网络公司住所地法院,与本案有实际联系,在双方协议约定管辖无效的情况下,对本案行使管辖权,并无不当,符合我国法律规定。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十八条和第二百四十二条之规定,山东省高级人民法院裁定:驳回韩国 MGAME公司(MGAME CORPORATION)对本案管辖权提出的异议。案件受理费五十元,由韩国MGAME公司(MGAME CORPORATION)负担。

BASIC FACTS
 

Mgame Company appealed to this Court against the above ruling, requesting this Court to revoke the original ruling, dismiss the complaint of Jufeng Company and order Jufeng Company to bear the case acceptance fees for the trials at first and second instances, mainly on the grounds that: (1) The original ruling violated statutory procedures. On November 14, 2008, the court of first instance served the case files on Mgame Company, which, however, only contained the statements of Jufeng Company on its claims and related facts and reasons without any evidentiary materials. Mgame Company had to lodge a challenge to jurisdiction based on evidence in its own possession in order to protect its procedural rights. The failure of the court of first instance to serve complete documents about Jufeng Company's complaint on Mgame Company violated the provisions of Articles 110 and 246 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and deprived Mgame Company of its right of defense against the claims and evidence of Jufeng Company during the jurisdiction challenge procedures. The original ruling was in serious violation of statutory procedures and should be revoked according to law. (2) The facts found in the original trial were unclear. In the “Facts and Reasons” part of its complaint, Jufeng Company alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant “entered into an Exclusive Game Distribution and License Agreement on March 10, 2005 for an online game titled Hero” and “the term of the contract shall be from March 10, 2005 to March 1, 2008.” The evidence submitted by Mgame Company as an attachment to its Challenge to Jurisdiction to the court of first instance was an Exclusive Game Distribution and License Agreement signed by Mgame Company and Jufeng Company on March 25, 2005, with a term of two years. The above two agreements were not the same agreement. The agreement provided by Jufeng Company was not signed by Mgame Company. Because Mgame Company had never received such an agreement, it could not determine whether it had signed the agreement and what the choice of court clause therein was about. Without examining the agreement submitted by Jufeng Company with its complaint, the court of first instance decided that the choice of court agreement of Jufeng Company and Mgame Company were invalid based on the relevant clauses of the Agreement dated March 25, 2008 provided by Mgame Company, and dismiss Mgame Company's challenge to jurisdiction. Such facts were not clearly found by the court. (3) According to the provisions of the Exclusive Game Distribution and License Agreement signed by Mgame Company and Jufeng Company on March 25, 2005, all disputes arising out of this Agreement should be subject to the jurisdiction of a court in Singapore. In the process of entering into this Agreement, Mgame Company and Jufeng Company had conducted several rounds of negotiations over matters concerning the jurisdiction. Jufeng Company proposed the Chinese court at the place where it was domiciled, while Mgame Company insisted on a Korean court at the place where it was domiciled. Eventually, the two sides compromised and agreed to accept the jurisdiction of a court in a third country, resulting in the provision of Article 21 of the above Agreement. This provision was originally intended to avoid possible unfair settlement of disputes in relation to the Agreement as a result of state or local protectionism. To allow the original trial court exercise jurisdiction over disputes arising from this Agreement was apparently contrary to the true will of both parties and unfair to Mgame Company. The original trial court should have no jurisdiction over this case.
......
 
MGAME公司不服原审裁定,向本院提起上诉,请求撤销原审裁定,驳回聚丰网络公司的起诉,本案一、二审案件受理费均由聚丰网络公司承担。其主要理由是:1.原审裁定违反法定程序。2008年11月14日,原审法院向MGAME公司送达的案卷材料仅包括聚丰网络公司关于诉讼请求及事实与理由的陈述,没有任何证据材料。 MGAME公司为保护自己的程序权利,只能以自己已掌握的证据为基础提出管辖权异议。原审法院未向MGAME公司送达聚丰网络公司完整的起诉状材料,违反了《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百一十条和第二百四十六条的规定, 剥夺了 MGAME公司在管辖权异议程序中就聚丰网络公司的主张和证据进行辩论的权利,其裁定严重违反法定程序,依法应当予以撤销。2.原审裁定事实认定不清。聚丰网络公司在其起诉状的“事实与理由”中声称,“原被告于2005年3月10日就互联网游戏《英雄》签订《独家游戏代理及许可协议》”,“合同有效期自2005年3月10日至 2008年3月1日”。MGAME公司在向原审法院提交《管辖权异议书》时所附的证据是 MGAME公司与聚丰网络公司于2005年3月25日签订的《独家游戏发行和许可协议》,该协议的期限是两年。上述两份协议并非同一协议。对于聚丰网络公司提供的协议,MGAME公司未签订过,因未收到该协议,MGAME公司也无法判断是否签订过该协议以及其中的协议管辖条款是如何约定的。原审法院没有对聚丰网络公司起诉时提交的协议进行审查,而是依据 MGAME公司提交的2008年3月25日的协议的有关条款认定聚丰网络公司与 MGAME公司协议约定管辖应属无效,从而驳回了MGAME公司对本案管辖权的异议,属于认定事实不清。3.根据MGAME公司与聚丰网络公司于2005年3月25日签订的《独家游戏发行和许可协议》的约定,由该协议引起的所有争议应由新加坡的法院管辖。MGAME公司与聚丰网络公司在订立协议过程中,多次就有关协议管辖的事项进行磋商。聚丰网络公司主张应由其住所地中国法院管辖,MGAME公司主张应由MGAME公司住所地韩国法院管辖,最后双方达成妥协,决定由第三国司法机构管辖,即协议第21条的内容。该约定的本意是避免任何可能由于国家或者地方保护主义而导致的对与协议有关的争议的不公平处理。由原审法院管辖因本协议引起的争议,显然违反了双方当事人的真实意思表示,对MGAME公司来说亦有失公平,原审法院对本案没有管辖权。
......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥900.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese