case-retrieval

Case retrieval (finding similar cases and relevant judgments)

Overview table

Item	Content
Capability name	Case retrieval
Capability number	09
Capability type	Legal atomic capability
Core function	Find similar cases and relevant judgments related to the current legal issue
Input elements	Case facts, legal relationship, issues in dispute, retrieval purpose
Output results	A structured case retrieval report, including case summaries, adjudication gist, and relevance assessment
Applicable stage	All stages of case analysis, litigation strategy formulation, legal document drafting, and legal research
Related capabilities	Legal relationship identification, issue in dispute extraction, statutory retrieval, legal argumentation
Risk level	Medium-high (omission or mis-citation of cases may lead to strategic deviation)

Legal statement

Important notice:

The case retrieval methodology and structured process provided by this skill are for reference only and do not constitute legal advice.

The legal system of mainland China is a civil law system, and cases do not have universal binding force (except guiding cases); retrieval results should be used as reference rather than direct legal basis.

Guiding cases issued by the Supreme People's Court have the effect of "shall be referred to," and their legal status is higher than that of ordinary cases.

When performing case retrieval, the AI system should clearly indicate the source, level of authority, and timeliness of the cases, and avoid citing adjudication views that have been overturned or are no longer applicable.

Case retrieval results should be reviewed by a practicing lawyer or legal professional before being used in actual legal affairs.

I. Retrieval foundations and ways of thinking

1.1 Description of similar case retrieval

Similar case retrieval refers to the activity of retrieving and applying cases that are similar to the pending case in basic facts, issues in dispute, legal application, and other aspects, and in which a people's court has already issued an effective judgment. Under China's civil law system, similar case retrieval reflectsIntegrated thinking of civil law and case law—using cases to assist in interpreting abstract legal provisions and enhancing the persuasiveness of subsuming the minor premise under the major premise.

1.2 Three scenarios of retrieval

Depending on the content of retrieval, similar case retrieval can generally be divided into three types:

Retrieval type	Applicable scenario	Example
Legal application type	Retrieve the application of a certain legal provision or judicial interpretation provision	How to determine the "person entrusted to manage or operate state-owned property" as stipulated in Article 382, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law
Fact-finding type	Retrieve the determination of a specific fact	In loan fraud cases, how to determine the 'intent of illegal possession' of a criminal suspect
Evidence admissibility type	Specific application of evidence retrieval rules	Whether interrogation transcripts from continuous interrogation exceeding a certain period of time and without evidence showing that food and drink were guaranteed should be excluded as illegal evidence

1.3 Purpose of retrieval use

Supporting arguments: Finding judicial precedents that support one's own viewpoint
Anticipating risks: Understanding the adjudication trends and win rates in similar cases
Rebutting the opposing party: Finding judicial viewpoints that negate the opposing party's arguments
Filling gaps: Seeking judicial practice attitudes on issues not clearly provided for by law
Unifying understanding: Sorting out the evolution of adjudication rules on a certain issue
Strategy formulation: Determining the optimal litigation strategy through case analysis
Document drafting: Providing case support for legal opinions/representation statements

II. Preparation before retrieval: characterization of the issue

2.1 Collection of background information

After conducting a preliminary analysis of the case evidence materials in this case, we should summarize and distill the correspondingretrieval needs. The retrieval needs here are, in fact, the legal issues or evidentiary issues that need to be resolved in this case.

Example: In a construction project case, besides the subcontractor who subcontracted the project to the actual constructor and the employer as provided for in judicial interpretations, can the actual constructor also claim payment of the project payment from others—for example, a contractor who has neither a contractual relationship with the actual constructor nor a legal provision applicable to them?

At this point, the retrieval needs can be summarized as:"Should the contractor be treated as having the status of the employer, break through privity of contract, and bear joint and several liability to the actual constructor? If so, should it bear joint and several liability within the scope of the unpaid project payment by reference to the provisions on the employer?"

2.2 Channels for information collection

When encountering unfamiliar cases that one has not handled before, drawing on the research results of predecessors who have studied this type of case is the most efficient method:

Search engine retrieval: Set keywords in Google, Baidu, etc., such as 'XX adjudication viewpoint, XX adjudication gist, XX big data report, XX summary, XX cases, XX practical insights'
WeChat article search: Almost all professional legal issues will be analyzed and summarized by someone through WeChat official accounts
Preliminary database retrieval: The 'similar case retrieval' functions of platforms such as PKULaw, Wolters Kluwer, and Faxin

Example: When handling a case, first, through analysis of the case evidence, summarize and distill the retrieval need of this case as 'solving the issue of determining the authenticity of the official seal,' and then search on WeChat: 'adjudication rules on the authenticity of official seals.' From the cases involved in the article, we can summarize the wording used by courts in judgments involving issues of official seal authenticity, which is of great help for our next step of extracting keywords for in-depth retrieval.

2.3 Determining the scope of retrieval

Case scope: Mainly includes typical cases published by higher-level courts and this court, as well as effective judgments rendered by them.

Time range: The different time ranges are stipulated in consideration of the current economic and social development situation, to avoid search results being inconsistent with the actual circumstances of current similar cases. Except for guiding cases, priority should be given to searching cases or matters from the past three years.

Geographical scope: In addition to typical cases published by higher-level courts and this court and effective judgments rendered by them, typical cases published in the past three years by other representative provincial and municipal higher people's courts and intermediate people's courts and effective judgments rendered by them may also be included in the search scope.

III. Search Elements and Keyword Extraction

3.1 Search Element Extraction Checklist

A. Basic elements (must be extracted)

Cause of action/dispute type
Core legal relationship
Main focus of dispute
Applicable legal provisions

B. Factual elements (extract as much as possible)

Type of party (natural person/legal person/other organization)
Nature and pattern of conduct
Type and degree of harm
Characteristics of causation
Form of fault

C. Limiting elements (extract as needed)

Geographical scope (nationwide/specific province/specific court)
Time range (recent years/specific period)
Trial level requirement (Supreme People's Court/Higher People's Court/Intermediate People's Court/basic-level court)
Tendency of judgment result (supported/rejected)
Range of amount in controversy

3.2 Classification and Extraction of Keywords

Keywords for case retrieval can be broadly divided into **"normative keywords"and"non-normative keywords"**:

Type	Definition	Example
Normative keywords	Concepts, terms, and facts defined and expressed in legal norms	Cause of action (charge), voluntary surrender, meritorious service, state functionary, illegal possession, joint crime, racing
Non-normative keywords	Natural facts or colloquial expressions outside legal norms	leading officials, App, mistress, baking powder, consumption card, counterfeit card

Four methods of keyword extraction:

Split from legal provisions: For Article 63 of the Company Law (one-person company), "one-person limited liability company," "shareholder," "independent property," and "joint and several liability" can be extracted.
Extract from case materials: Extract industry terms from contracts and documents (such as "illegal subcontracting," "overdue completion").
Summarize from case facts: Summarize keywords from factual fragments (such as "nominee shareholding," "completed dry shares").

3.3 Examples of Keyword Combinations

Taking "disregard of corporate personality of affiliated companies" as an example:

第一组（核心概念）：
- "公司人格否认" + "关联公司"
- "刺破公司面纱" + "人格混同"
- "公司法第20条" + "连带责任"

第二组（混同类型）：
- "人员混同" + "关联公司"
- "财务混同" + "独立性"
- "业务混同" + "公司人格"
- "三混同" + "公司人格否认"

第三组（横向刺破）：
- "横向刺破" OR "横向否认"
- "关联公司" + "连带责任" + "债权人"
- "实际控制人" + "多家公司" + "混同"

第四组（法源检索）：
- "九民纪要" + "公司人格否认"
- "全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要" + "第10条"

IV. Search Methods and Paths

4.0 Data Sources and Tool Invocation Conventions (Mandatory)

Core principle: Every case produced by this skill must come from real retrieval; generating from memory is strictly prohibited.

Before executing the following retrieval paths, first determine whether the operating environment containscase retrieval tools(such as a connected case database MCP service, retrieval API, or local case database):

If present: The search terms/search queries designed below must be submitted to this tool, and the real results returned by it (case numbers, courts, years, causes of action, adjudication gist, source links) must be used as the sole data source for subsequent similarity assessment and reports. Fabricated "cases" from memory must not be used to replace or supplement search results.
If it does not exist: Complete the search query design and methodological steps as usual, but wherever specific cases are involved, mark [待检索], and clearly state in the report: "No case database is connected; the following search queries must be executed manually."Never fabricate case numbers, parties, or adjudication gist.
Tool-agnostic: This convention relies only on the abstract capability of "input search terms → return real cases" and is not bound to any specific vendor. Any equivalent case database tool is acceptable. For specific access methods (such as PKULAW MCP), see README.md。

4.1 Search Paths

Search Path	Applicable Scenario	How to Operate	Example
Find cases by legal provisions	The legal application is clear, and you want to understand the practice concerning a certain legal provision	Find the target legal provision in the database (such as Article 20 of the Company Law), and click the link to view cases that "cite this legal provision."	To search for the validity of a contract entered into by the legal representative acting beyond authority, directly look at cases citing Article 50 of the Contract Law (now Article 504 of the Civil Code).
Find cases by cases	You are unfamiliar with the field and need to quickly find core cases	1. Find a "seed case" through WeChat articles, etc. 2. Read the seed case closely and extract the legal provisions and keywords cited by the judge. 3. Use the new legal provisions and keywords to expand the search.	Through an article on "adjudication rules for the authenticity of official seals," find related cases, then analyze the judge's adjudication logic and cited legal provisions in that case for in-depth searching.
Keyword search	Most commonly used, applicable to most scenarios	1. Basic search: Enter "construction project overdue completion". 2. Advanced search: Limit the "court's opinion" section to contain "one-person company," and the "judgment result" to contain "joint and several liability." 3. Combined search: Normative + non-normative, such as "crime of infringing citizens' personal information + App."	To search for whether a briber's holding of shares on behalf of another constitutes completed bribery, use the combination "bribery + dry shares + completed offense."
Find cases by subject	Usual litigation strategies for a specific subject (such as a large enterprise)	Directly enter the company's full name in the database's "party" field to search all judgments in which it is a party.	If you want to understand a well-known real estate company's construction project dispute strategy, directly search with it as the "party."

V. Case Similarity Assessment

5.1 Definition and Identification Criteria of Similar Cases

According to Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Guiding Opinions on Unifying the Application of Law and Strengthening the Retrieval of Similar Cases (for Trial Implementation):"Similar cases refer to cases that are similar to the pending case in terms of basic facts, issues in dispute, legal application issues, etc., and in which a people's court has already issued a legally effective judgment."

Accordingly, determining whether cases constitute "similar cases" requires grasping the following three identification criteria:

Identification Criteria	Core Content	Key Points for Judgment
Fact Identification	Basic facts should be those that play a decisive role in the judgment outcomeKey Facts(Key facts that meet the elements of the legal composition)	Exclude detailed facts unrelated to the application of law, and focus on elemental facts
Issue Identification	The disputed issue is the core judgment for resolving the case dispute, and is morethe disputed issue in the application of law	Focus on the core legal issues disputed by both parties, rather than purely factual disputes
Legal Identification	For cases with the same cause of action, in principle the applicable legal norms should fall within the same scope	The same cause of action is an important reference, but not an absolute standard; specific legal provisions must be considered

Note: The three identification markers should beapplied comprehensively, rather than applied singly. A high degree of similarity in one marker may strengthen the identification of a similar case, but a fundamental difference in any one marker may make it impossible to constitute a similar case.

5.2 Similarity Assessment Dimensions and Weights

For cases that pass preliminary screening, an in-depth similarity assessment must be conducted from the following five dimensions. The judgment for each dimension is intended to measure the degree of similarity between the target case and the retrieved case, thereby determining the reference value of the case.

Assessment Dimension	Weight	Assessment Content	Manifestation of High Similarity
Consistency of Legal Relationship	30%	Whether the cause of action, the legal status of the parties, the structure of rights and obligations, and the underlying legal relationship are consistent	The cause of action is the same, the status of the parties corresponds, the direction of rights and obligations is consistent, and the underlying legal relationship is of the same type
Correspondence of Disputed Issues	25%	Whether the disputed issues are the same, whether the disputes over the application of law are similar, and whether the norms involved are the same or similar	The core dispute is completely the same, involving the same legal article or the same interpretive issue under the same provision
Similarity of Key Facts	25%	Whether the decisive facts and elemental facts are similar; whether there are facts that weaken or strengthen probative force	The elemental facts are completely consistent, the decisive circumstances are the same, and there is no substantive difference
Reference to Adjudicative Rules	15%	Whether the adjudicative gist is clear and explicit, and whether it forms a rule-like statement that can be generally applied	The adjudicative gist forms a clear rule that "under condition A, B should be determined," and can be transplanted to this case
Procedural Issue Connection	5%	Whether the trial procedure, evidence rules, and litigation stage are the same or analogous	Both are final appellate judgments, the rule for allocation of burden of proof is consistent, and the litigation stage is the same

5.2.1 Dimension One: Consistency of Legal Relationship (Weight 30%)

Meaning: The overall consistency between the target case and the retrieved case in terms of the nature of the legal relationship, the legal status of the parties, the structure of rights and obligations, etc. This is the basic threshold for determining whether a "similar case" is constituted.

Key Points for Judgment：

Consistency of Cause of Action: Whether it belongs to the same cause of action or the most similar cause of action (such as both being "disputes over liability for shareholders damaging the interests of company creditors").
Legal Status of the Parties: Whether the roles of the parties in the legal relationship correspond (e.g., all are sued as "one-person company shareholders" to bear joint and several liability).
Structure of rights and obligations: Whether the direction of the core relationship of rights and obligations is the same (e.g., all are creditors requesting shareholders to bear joint and several liability for company debts).
Underlying legal relationship: Whether the underlying legal relationship from which the core dispute derives is the same (e.g., all are payment debts arising from a sales contract relationship).

Evaluation note: This dimension is thefirst thresholdfor determining similar cases. If there is a fundamental difference in the legal relationship, then even if other dimensions are highly similar, the case should not be used as a core reference.

5.2.2 Dimension Two: Correspondence of Issues in Dispute (Weight 25%)

Meaning: Whether the core legal issues disputed by the parties between the target case and the retrieved case are the same. The issues in dispute are the bridge connecting the facts of the case and the application of law, and are the key identifying marker for determining "similar cases".

Judgment points：

Identity of the disputed issues: Whether the core legal issues argued by both parties are the same (e.g., all are "whether the audit report submitted by the shareholder of a one-person company can prove property independence").
Whether the disputes over application of law are similar: Whether the legal norms and legal interpretation issues involved are consistent (e.g., all involve the allocation of burden of proof under Article 63 of the Company Law).
Number and level of issues in dispute: Whether the core dispute is unique, or whether although there are multiple disputes, the main disputes are consistent (differences in secondary disputes do not affect this).
Need for adjudication rules: Whether the adjudication rule guidance expected by both parties is the same (e.g., both need clarification of "what kind of evidence can prove property independence").

Evaluation note: This dimension is thecore hubfor determining "similar cases". Even if the legal relationship is consistent, if the issues in dispute are different, the adjudication rules are difficult to directly refer to. The focus should be on comparing the "issues in dispute" summarized by the court with the issues in dispute in the target case.

5.2.3 Dimension Three: Similarity of Key Facts (Weight 25%)

Meaning: Whether thekey factsthat have a decisive impact on the judgment outcome are similar between the target case and the retrieved case. Not all facts need to be the same; only the "element facts" that meet the legal constitutive requirements are the object of comparison.

Judgment points：

Constitutive element facts: Whether the factual elements required by the legal norm are present (e.g., all are "the shareholder submitted a complete annual audit report + bank statements + applied for judicial audit").
Decisive circumstances: Whether the core circumstances affecting the direction of adjudication are consistent (e.g., all are "the audit report has no defects, and the creditor did not provide specific clues of commingling").
Factual defects and exceptions: Whether there are facts that weaken or strengthen the probative force (e.g., one shareholder refuses to provide original vouchers, while the other voluntarily provides them).
Similarity of temporal and spatial background: Whether the time, place, trade practices, etc., of the conduct are similar.

Methods for identifying key facts：

From the "facts found by the court" section of the judgment document, extract the facts that the court determines to have a "significant impact on the judgment outcome".
Compare with the constitutive requirements of the legal norm to identify which facts are element facts.
Exclude detailed facts that are unrelated to the application of law (such as the specific time and place of contract signing, etc.).

Assessment Tip: This dimension is themost flexible dimension, and it needs to be judged in light of specific legal norms. Slight differences may lead to completely opposite adjudication results, so extra caution is required during assessment. It is recommended to use the "substitution method": replace the key facts in the retrieved case with the facts of the target case, and determine whether the adjudication result can still hold.

5.2.4 Dimension Four: Reference to Adjudication Rules (Weight 15%)

Meaning: Whether the adjudication gist and legal application rules extracted from the retrieved case can provide direct and clear reference for the target case. This determines the "usability" of the case.

Judgment Points：

Clarity of the adjudication gist: Whether the court clearly stated the adjudication rule (for example, clearly expressing: "Under condition A, legal effect B should be found").
Transferability of the rule: Whether the adjudication rule can be directly applied to similar situations in the target case (the rule should be general rather than highly dependent on the specific facts of an individual case).
Universality of the rule: Whether the rule has been corroborated by multiple cases or is an isolated example.
Value of the rule for supplementary interpretation: Whether it provides a concrete interpretation of ambiguous legal provisions (rather than merely repeating the original text of the statute).

Method for Extracting Adjudication Rules：

Focus on therule-like statementsin the "This Court holds" section of the adjudication document. Hallmark phrases include: "should be found to constitute...", "should not be supported...", "may refer to...", "This Court holds that ... does/does not constitute..."
Replace the facts of the individual case with a typified description and extract generally applicable adjudication standards.
Rule expression format: "Under [condition/situation] , the [act/request]of [subject] [should/may/should not] be found to constitute [legal effect]。”

Assessment Tip: This dimension determines the case'sactual persuasiveness. A case with thorough reasoning and clear rules is far more valuable than multiple vaguely worded cases. Give priority to cases that provide concrete interpretation of legal provisions.

5.2.5 Dimension Five: Relevance of Procedural Issues (Weight 5%)

Meaning: The relevance between the target case and the retrieved case in terms of trial procedure, evidence rules, litigation stage, and other aspects. Procedural differences may affect the preconditions for applying the adjudication rule.

Judgment Points：

Consistency of trial procedure: Whether both are second-instance, retrial, or first-instance proceedings (second-instance and retrial cases usually have more thorough reasoning).
Application of evidence rules: Whether they involve the same issues such as allocation of the burden of proof and standard of proof.
Litigation stage: Whether they are at the same litigation stage (for example, both are principal claims, or both are actions objecting to enforcement).
Procedural defects and exceptions: Whether there are procedural issues affecting the validity of the adjudication.

Assessment Tip: This dimension carries relatively low weight and typically becomes meaningful only when the above four dimensions are highly similar. However, procedural issues (such as the adjudication rules of retrial cases) may significantly enhance or weaken the reference value of a case. Special note: a first-instance judgment that has not yet taken effect cannot serve as the basis for a similar case; the reasoning in retrial cases ("civil retrial") is usually the most rigorous.

5.3 Comprehensive Assessment and Grouping

After completing the assessment of the five dimensions, the degree of similarity across all dimensions should be comprehensively considered, and the cases should be graded as a whole in light of their level of legal effect and the time of adjudication.

Key Points of Comprehensive Assessment：

Make a comprehensive judgment and avoid absolutizing any single dimension: The five dimensions should be assessed in combination; a similar case cannot be found to exist merely because one dimension is highly similar, nor can it be completely excluded merely because one dimension differs.
Sensitivity to Differences in Key Facts: In certain legal issues, a slight factual difference may lead to completely opposite adjudication outcomes, and special attention should be paid to this during assessment.
Equal Assessment of Contrary Cases: Opposing cases likewise need to be assessed according to the above dimensions in order to clarify where they differ from the target case and to provide a basis for rebuttal or risk prediction.
Cross-Verification of Multiple Cases: The assessment of a single case may be biased; it is advisable to cross-compare multiple cases to identify the mainstream and exceptions in adjudication rules.
Make a Comprehensive Judgment in Light of the Level of Legal Effect: After the similarity assessment is completed, the final reference value must also be determined comprehensively in light of the case's level of legal effect (guiding cases, gazette cases, etc.).

Case Grouping Standards(for reference):

Group	Degree of Similarity	Handling Method
Group A: Core Cases	Highly similar (at least the first three of the five dimensions are highly consistent)	Detailed analysis, key citations, serving as the main basis for reference
Group B: Important Reference Cases	Moderately similar (the first three dimensions are basically consistent, with individual differences)	The format may be appropriately simplified and used as supplementary reference
Group C: General Reference Cases	Low similarity (only some dimensions are consistent)	In brief list form, for background reference only
Group D: Contrary Cases	Opposite adjudication conclusions (regardless of the degree of similarity)	List cases with opposite adjudication conclusions and analyze the reasons for the differences in detail

VI. Case Screening and Ranking

Case screening is the core step in producing a similar case retrieval report. By screening out the most reference-worthy cases through scientific standards, the persuasiveness of the report can be enhanced while information overload can be avoided. This chapter systematically explains the six major standards for case screening (level, region, time, procedure, background, importance) and the three major verification rules (validity verification, risk verification), and explains in detail the judgment methods and applicable rules for each standard.

5.1 Case Screening Standards

Dimension	Screening/Verification Item	Priority/Qualification Standard	Risk Alert/Exclusion Circumstance
Level Standard	Level of Legal Effect of the Case	Guiding cases > Database cases > Gazette cases > Typical cases/Supreme People's Court cases > Reference cases of higher people's courts > Cases of superior courts > Cases of this court > Others	When there are sufficient cases at the prior rank, in principle, no cases at the subsequent rank shall be submitted.
Geographic standard	Relevance to the court's jurisdiction	Local court > courts in economically/culturally similar regions > others	If the dispute has obvious regional characteristics (such as the application of local regulations), give priority to cases within the local jurisdiction.
Time standard	Time of adjudication and time the facts occurred	The closer the adjudication time is to the present, the higher the priority (within 3-5 years is recommended).	Pay attention to matching the time when the legal facts occurred with the time of adjudication; be alert to rules becoming outdated due to changes in the law.
Procedure standard	Type of trial procedure	"Min Zai" > "Min Zhong" > "Min Chu" > "Min Shen"	Retrial cases have the most rigorous reasoning; Supreme People's Court cases with the "Min Shen" case number represent the views of the original trial high court and have relatively low reference value.
Background standard	Special endorsement circumstances	Cases with special endorsement (a member of the collegial panel participated in drafting judicial interpretations / discussed and decided by the adjudication committee) have priority.	Cases without special endorsement generally have ordinary reference value.
Importance standard	Degree of major, difficult, and complex	Cases that fall under the "four categories of cases" or circumstances requiring mandatory retrieval have priority for reference.	The depth of reasoning and reference value of ordinary summary procedure cases are usually lower than those of major and difficult cases.
Validity verification	Confirm that the judgment has taken effect	Verify whether there is a second-instance procedure and whether the second-instance result conflicts with the first instance.	A judgment that has not taken effect is not eligible to be referenced.
Risk verification	Confirm that the judgment has not been revoked; confirm that the judgment has no risk.	Use the names of the main parties as keywords to search for related cases, and comprehensively review all content in the case unrelated to one's own purpose of proof.	There is a possibility of being revoked through retrial or a third-party revocation action,Avoid viewpoints unfavorable to one's own side in the case.

6.1.1 Hierarchy standard (validity priority)

Meaning of the standard: The hierarchy of validity of a case determines its binding force and persuasiveness. The higher the hierarchy, the stronger the court's obligation to refer to it.

Judgment rules：

Case type	Publishing body	Hierarchy of validity	Applicable rules
Guiding cases	Supreme People's Court Adjudication Committee	Shall be referred to(hard constraint)	Courts at all levels shall refer to them when adjudicating similar cases; the reasoning in the judgment document must respond to whether they were referred to.
Cases included in the People's Courts Case Database	Supreme People's Court	Shall be referred to	According to Article 19 of the Working Rules for the Construction and Operation of the People's Courts Case Database, if submitted by a party, the court shall respond in its reasoning.
Gazette cases	Supreme People's Court Gazette	Highly authoritative reference(soft constraint)	They do not have mandatory effect, but reflect the Supreme People's Court's tendency of opinion.
Typical cases/reference cases	Various business divisions of the Supreme People's Court, local high people's courts	Important reference	Mainly used to unify adjudication standards within the jurisdiction, with de facto guiding significance for lower courts
Cases of higher courts	The people's court at the next higher level	De facto binding force	Based on trial-level supervision, judgments generally may not conflict with judgments of higher courts
Cases of this court	Prior adjudications of this court	Soft constraint	Avoid different judgments in similar cases and maintain judicial consistency
Cases of courts in other provinces and municipalities	Courts in other provinces and municipalities	General reference	Draw on adjudication reasoning and methods, with no binding force

Key practical operation points：

When cases of prior rank are sufficient, in principle no cases of the next rank shall be submitted.
If cases of prior rank are insufficient, they may be supplemented in sequence, but this must be explained in the report.
The core goal of a retrieval report is to "convince by reasoning." Even if there are only cases of higher courts or this court, if the reasoning is thorough, it still has important reference value.

6.1.2 Regional standard (jurisdictional connection)

Meaning of the standard: The regional connection between the court that tried the case and the court accepting the target case affects the acceptability of the adjudication rules.

Judgment rules：

Cases of local courts take priority: Cases in the same province, city, or even the same court as the target case best reflect the adjudication habits and judicial policies of the jurisdiction.
Cases of courts in regions with similar economic and cultural conditions come next: If local cases are insufficient, cases of courts in provinces and municipalities with similar economic structures, cultural backgrounds, and judicial traditions may be given priority (such as the Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, Chengdu-Chongqing, and other regions).
Cases from other regions come after that: For general reference only.

Special attention：

If the dispute type or key facts of the pending case have obviousregional characteristics(such as involving local regulations, local policies, or specific industry practices), priority should be given to retrieving cases of courts in the jurisdiction, and the reference value of cases from other provinces and municipalities will be significantly reduced.
For example: for disputes involving rural land contractual management rights, local regulations differ greatly among provinces, so cases of the provincial high court or intermediate court should be given priority.

6.1.3 Temporal standard (timeliness)

Meaning of the standard: The degree of proximity between the adjudication time and the time when the case facts occurred and those of the target case affects the timeliness and applicability of the adjudication rules.

Judgment rules：

The closer the adjudication time is to the present, the higher the priority: Laws, judicial interpretations, and judicial policies are constantly updated, and cases from the past 3-5 years best reflect the current adjudication standards.
The time when the legal facts occurred must also be considered: Cases with similar adjudication times but widely differing times when the legal facts occurred may have applied different legal norms (such as the Contract Law and the Civil Code). Priority should be given to cases in which the time when the legal facts occurred is close to that of the target case.
Be alert to legal changes: If the target case should apply the Civil Code, but the retrieved case was adjudicated in 2019 (applying the Contract Law), it is necessary to confirm whether the Civil Code has changed the relevant rules. If the rules have not changed, it can still be referenced; if they have changed, it cannot be referenced.

Time-effectiveness deduction reference(used for comprehensive scoring):

Cases from 3-5 years ago: discretionary deduction
Cases from 5-10 years ago: larger deduction
Cases more than 10 years old: in principle not adopted, unless it is confirmed that the relevant law has not undergone any changes

6.1.4 Procedural standard (rigor of trial level)

Meaning of the standard: Cases in different trial procedures differ in the rigor of their reasoning and the stability of their adjudicative views.

Judgment rules：

"Min Zai" is superior to "Min Zhong" is superior to "Min Chu" is superior to "Min Shen"
Min Zai (retrial): Discussed by the judicial committee or reversed on retrial, with the most rigorous reasoning and adjudicative views of the greatest reference value.
Min Zhong (second instance): Final judgment, with stable effect, and is the main source of reference.
Min Chu (first instance): A judgment that has not yet taken effect (if appeal is possible) is not eligible for reference; a first-instance judgment that has taken effect but was not appealed has less reference value than a second-instance judgment.
Min Shen (retrial review): A case with the Supreme Court's "Min Shen" case number usually only represents the view of the original trial high court, and the Supreme Court has not made a substantive adjudication, so its reference value is relatively low and in principle it is not used as a main reference.

Key practical operational points：

When retrieving a first-instance document, be sure to verify whether there is a second-instance procedure and the second-instance outcome.
Give priority to cases with "Min Zai" and "Min Zhong" case numbers.

6.1.5 Background standard (special endorsement)

Meaning of the standard: The trial background of a case (such as the members of the collegial panel or discussion by the judicial committee) may confer additional authority on it.

Judgment rules：

Collegial panel members participated in the legislative background: If a member of the collegial panel previously participated in the drafting of relevant judicial interpretations or judicial documents, the reasoning in the judgment they authored is often closer to the legislative intent and has higher reference value.
Decided after discussion by the judicial committee: If the expression "decided after discussion by this court's judicial committee" appears in the judgment document, it indicates that the case has received the professional endorsement of the judicial committee, and the authority of the adjudicative rules is significantly enhanced.

Key practical operational points：

When reading the judgment document, pay attention to whether the above expressions appear in the header or in the "this court holds" section.
If the above circumstances exist, they may be specially noted in the retrieval report to enhance persuasiveness.

6.1.6 Importance standard (degree of major, difficult, and complex)

Meaning of the standard: The importance, difficulty, and complexity of the case itself affect the typicality of its adjudicative rules and the depth of its reasoning. Cases that fall under the circumstances of "should conduct similar case retrieval" usually have higher reference value.

Basis for judgment(refer to the Supreme People's Court's Guiding Opinions on Unifying the Application of Law and Strengthening Similar Case Retrieval (for Trial Implementation) and relevant provisions):

The followingfour categories of cases, when judges are hearing them,must conduct similar case retrieval. The judgment documents of such cases often undergo more prudent consideration and have more sufficient reasoning:

Major, difficult, complex, and sensitive: including circumstances involving major interests, complex legal relationships, high public attention, and strong policy implications. Judgments in such cases usually go through discussion by a professional judges' meeting or the judicial committee, and the adjudication rules are more typical.
Involving mass disputes or triggering widespread public attention, and possibly affecting social stability: such as cases involving the group interests of numerous workers, property owners, investors, etc. The adjudication in such cases often reflects the orientation of judicial policy and has important reference significance.
Possibly conflicting with similar-case adjudications of this court or a higher people's court: this indicates that the legal issue itself involves divergent adjudication, and if the retrieved cases can unify the rules, their value is higher.
Relevant units or individuals reporting that a judge has engaged in illegal adjudication conduct: after supervision and review, such cases usually provide stronger guarantees of the fairness and reasoning of the adjudication.

In addition, the following circumstances also fall within the scope of mandatory retrieval or highly recommended retrieval, and the relevant cases are likewise of relatively high importance:

Cases to be submitted to a professional judges' meeting or the judicial committee for discussion: the adjudication rules in such cases usually undergo collective discussion and have relatively high authority.
Lacking clear and unified adjudication rules or where unified adjudication rules have not yet been formed: in such cases, the court's reasoning is often more detailed, attempting to fill legal gaps or clarify ambiguous areas.
Cases for which the president or division chief requires retrieval based on judicial supervision and management authority: this reflects the court's internal emphasis on case quality.

Practical Application：

When screening cases, prioritize cases that fall within the above circumstances. How to determine this? It can be identified through the following features of the adjudication document:
- The document contains "decided upon discussion by this court's judicial committee";
- The cause of action is a new or difficult case (such as expressions like "first case" or "first nationwide case");
- The case has numerous parties or involves the public interest;
- The judgment is relatively long and the reasoning section is detailed.
In the retrieval report, cases with the above features may be annotated (such as "this case was decided upon discussion by the judicial committee and has high reference value").

6.1.7 Validity Verification and Risk Verification

Before including any case in a retrieval report, the following three verifications must be completed. In principle, a case that fails any one verification should not be included in the retrieval report (except for opposing cases, but this must be specially explained).

6.8.1 Confirm that the judgment has taken effect

Method of operation：

Verify whether second-instance proceedings exist. If a first-instance judgment is retrieved, it is necessary to search China Judgments Online or related-case retrieval using the party's name as the keyword to find whether a second-instance document exists.
If second instance exists, confirm whether the second-instance result conflicts with the first instance (such as second instance reversing the judgment or remanding for retrial). If the second instance upholds the original judgment or makes only minor adjustments, the first-instance judgment may still be referenced, but it is better to rely on the second-instance judgment.

Risk warning：

A judgment that has not taken effect does not have the qualification to be referenced. If a first-instance judgment is within the appeal period or has been appealed but not yet concluded, it cannot serve as the basis for a similar case.

6.8.2 Confirm that the judgment has not been revoked

Method of operation：

Using the case to be verifiedprincipal partySearch by the name as the keyword (as far as possible limited to the core parties, avoiding adding non-core subjects such as third parties, so as not to miss any), and conduct a related-case search on the China Judgments Online or in databases.
Check whether there is a retrial judgment, a ruling to bring the case up for trial, or a judgment in a third-party revocation action that revokes or modifies the original judgment.

Risk warning：

There is a possibility of being revoked through retrial or a third-party revocation action. If the original judgment has already been revoked, its adjudication rules no longer have reference value.

6.8.3 Confirming that a judgment is risk-free

Method of operation：

Comprehensively review in the caseunrelated to one's own purpose of proofall contents, including:
- Whether the "facts found by this Court" section contains descriptions of facts unfavorable to one's own side;
- Whether the "this Court holds" section contains negative evaluations of similar claims;
- Whether the judgment result contains findings unfavorable to one's own side (such as "the plaintiff was also at fault").

Risk warning：

Avoid the existence in the case of views unfavorable to one's own side. If the retrieved case, although overall supporting one's own claims, contains in some detail a statement unfavorable to one's own side (such as "although this case finds the shareholder exempt from liability, note that there must be no funds dealings between the shareholder and the company"), the opposing lawyer may excerpt that unfavorable part to attack. One should identify this in advance and prepare a response strategy, or consider whether to change the case.

6.2 Rules for case ordering and handling conflicts

When multiple similar cases exist or even conflict, order and handle them according to the "principle of proximity." This principle is divided into three levels:Priority for similar level > Priority for similar specialty > Priority for similar time。

Priority for similar level: For the adjudicator of the accepting court, the cases of itsimmediately superior courthave the greatest influence and persuasiveness, because they directly relate to adjudication risk (being modified or remanded for retrial).
Priority for similar specialty: Within the same court, cases of theprofessional adjudication division hearing this case(such as the financial division or intellectual property division) have greater reference value than cases of other divisions of the same court.
Priority for similar time: When a conflict arises,the later adjudication timecase takes priority. This is because later cases usually reflect new laws and regulations, judicial interpretations, or adjustments in judicial policy.

6.2.1 Classification of direct-line, collateral, and out-of-system cases (the basis for priority for similar level)

Category	Definition	Example	Binding force
Direct-line case	A case of a superior court that has a vertical supervisory relationship with the accepting court	Basic-level court → Intermediate court → High court → Supreme Court	Strongest (the closer the level, the stronger)
Collateral case	A case of another court at the same level under the jurisdiction of the same superior court as the accepting court	Different basic-level courts under the jurisdiction of the same intermediate court; different intermediate courts under the jurisdiction of the same high court	Medium (regional reference)
Out-of-system case	Other cases that are not direct-line or collateral	Cases of courts in other provinces or cities	Weaker (for reasoning reference only)

6.2.2 Eight Specific Handling Rules

Rule One: Direct cases take precedence over collateral cases, and collateral cases take precedence over external cases.

Rule Two: Among direct cases, if cases from courts at different levels are inconsistent, the case from thenearest superior courtto the receiving court takes precedence.

Rule Three: Among direct cases, if the nearest superior court to the receiving court has multiple cases and they are inconsistent, the case from thesame specialized adjudication divisionthat is hearing this case takes precedence.

Rule Four: Among direct cases, if the nearest superior court and the same specialized adjudication division hearing this case have multiple cases and they are inconsistent, the case that islater in timetakes precedence.

Rule Five: Among direct cases, if cases from multiple superior courts at different levels are inconsistent, the case that islater in timetakes precedence.

Rule Six: Cases of the receiving court shall be used according to the following rules:

If the case of the judge or collegial panel hearing this case is inconsistent with the case of another judge or collegial panel of the receiving court, the case ofthe judge hearing this case or the same collegial paneltakes precedence;
If cases from different specialized adjudication divisions of the receiving court are inconsistent, the case ofthe specialized adjudication division to which the judge or collegial panel belongstakes precedence;
If the specialized adjudication division to which the judge or collegial panel belongs has no case, the case ofthe same specialized adjudication division of the nearest superior courttakes precedence;
If the judge, collegial panel, or the specialized adjudication division to which they belong has multiple cases and they are inconsistent, the case that islater in timetakes precedence.

Rule Seven: If this court has no case and there are no other direct cases, reference shall be made to thecollateral casesof the receiving court. Collateral cases shall be used according to the following rules:

If there are multiple collateral cases, the case of the court at the same level as the people's government seat at the same level as the nearest common higher-level court takes precedence; if the court at that priority level has multiple cases, the case later in time takes precedence;
Among collateral cases, if cases from different specialized adjudication divisions are inconsistent, the collateral case from thesame specialized adjudication divisionas the one hearing this case takes precedence;
Among multiple collateral cases, the case that islater in timetakes precedence.

Rule Eight: If there are no direct cases and no collateral cases,external cases：

shall be used according to the following rules: Cases involving the same party as one party in this case and with the same or similar subject matter take precedence; if there are multiple similar cases and they conflict, the case later in time takes precedence;
Cases from courts at the same level under the jurisdiction of the same court for retrial take precedence;
Cases from courts at the same level as the receiving court that belong to the same cultural sphere take precedence; if there are multiple cases, the case from the same specialized adjudication division as the one hearing this case takes precedence; if the same specialized adjudication division has multiple cases, the case later in time takes precedence;
Except in the above circumstances, out-of-system cases from other courts at the same level shall take priority; where there are multiple cases, cases from the same specialized adjudication division that heard this case shall take priority; where there are multiple cases from the same specialized adjudication division, the later case shall take priority.

Summary: The above eight rules constitute a complete case application system built on the principles of "similar level takes priority, similar specialty takes priority, similar time takes priority," and are used to resolve contradictory judgments produced by different courts on the same legal issue and to guide practice in determining which similar cases have the most reference value.

VII. Organization of Search Results and Report Preparation

7.1 Case Information Extraction Template

Basic Information

Case Name:
Case Number:
Trial Court:
Date of Judgment:
Cause of Action:
Trial Level: (First Instance/Second Instance/Retrial)
Case Type: (Guiding Case/Gazette Case/Typical Case/General Case)
Document Type: (Judgment/Ruling/Mediation Agreement)

Party Information

Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant:
Defendant/Appellee/Respondent:
Third Party (if any):

Summary of Case Facts

Core Facts: (summarize within 200 words)
Corresponding relationship with the facts of the target case:

Issues in Dispute

Issue 1:
Issue 2:

Gist of the Judgment

Core Adjudication Rule:
Key Points of Legal Application:
Summary of Reasons for Judgment:

Applicable Law

Main Legal Basis:
Basis in Judicial Interpretation:

Judgment Result

Summary of the Judgment/Ruling Dispositif:

Search Assessment

Similarity Score: __/10
Similarity Level: High/Medium/Low
Explanation of Reference Value:
Key Differences from the Target Case:

7.2 Standard Structure of a Search Report

## 一、检索说明
### 1.1 检索问题
[明确本次检索需要解决的法律问题]

### 1.2 检索工具
[列出使用的数据库和平台]

### 1.3 检索方法
[说明使用的检索路径和关键词]

## 二、待决案件基本信息
### 2.1 法律关系
[描述目标案件的法律关系]

### 2.2 争议焦点
- 焦点1：[描述]
- 焦点2：[描述]

### 2.3 适用法律
- [列出相关法律条文]

## 三、核心案例（A组：相似度≥80%）
[详细案例信息，按模板填写]

## 四、重要参考案例（B组：相似度60-79%）
[格式同上，可适当简化]

## 五、一般参考案例（C组：相似度40-59%）
[简要列表形式]

## 六、对立案例（D组）
[列出裁判结论相反的案例，分析差异原因]

## 七、裁判规则总结
### 7.1 主流裁判规则
[归纳多数案例体现的裁判规则]

### 7.2 少数/例外裁判规则
[归纳少数案例的不同观点]

### 7.3 裁判趋势分析
[分析裁判规则的演变趋势]

## 八、检索结论与建议
### 8.1 检索结论
[总结检索发现]

### 8.2 对目标案件的参考建议
[基于检索结果提出建议]

### 8.3 检索局限性说明
[说明本次检索的局限和不足]

7.3 Preparation Techniques and Points to Note

1. Organization of Similar Cases: Arrange them hierarchically in correspondence with the argumentation approach of the agency opinion

A similar case search report exists to assist in arguing litigation claims, and its organizing logic should correspond to the argumentation approach under the agency opinion. When the adjudication viewpoints that multiple similar cases are intended to support correspond respectively to different issues in dispute, hierarchical arrangement and logical correspondence among different similar cases become even more necessary.

2. Use of Contrary Cases

Contrary cases are not necessarily useless. Searching for and analyzing contrary cases is equivalent to viewing the issue from a god's-eye perspective:

Comprehensively assess the legal risks one's own side may face, and determine whether the case has agency value
Use this to break through the limitations and rigidity of the agency approach under a one-sided perspective, and prepare in advance to respond to the other party's possible defenses
Submitting a comprehensive similar case analysis report and explaining that contrary cases are unusable can relatively increase the judge's overall acceptance of the report

3. Do More Subtraction and Less Addition

It is not necessary to state in the report the search time, the keywords used during the search process, or the name of the searcher
Similar cases under the same issue in dispute or gist of judgment are generally best kept to 3-5
Avoid having the entire text full of marking traces, which instead makes the key points less prominent

4. Handling of the Original Case Text

The original text of the search basis should be attached after the search report
Use a highlighter to mark the key points of the reading, so as to reduce the judge's reading burden
It is best to use a version with the watermark of the China Judgments Online
Number the pages of the original case text and prepare a table of contents, or indicate the specific page numbers of the corresponding original case text in the similar case summary section

VIII. Complete Sample Report: Similar Case Search Report on Horizontal Disregard of Corporate Personality

I. Search Description

1.1 Search Questions

Core question: Where affiliated companies have commingled personalities, should they bear joint and several liability for each other's debts? (Applicable conditions for horizontal disregard of corporate personality)

Extended questions：

How is commingling of corporate personalities among affiliated companies determined?
What are the determination standards for "commingling of personnel, commingling of business, and commingling of finances"?
Should the actual controller bear joint and several liability for the debts of affiliated companies?

1.2 Search Tools

Faxin Platform
PKULaw
Wolters Kluwer
China Judgments Online
People's Court Case Database

1.3 Search Methods

Path One (statutory provision association): Based on Article 20, Paragraph 3 and Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Company Law (2023 revision) and Articles 10-11 of the Minutes of the National Courts' Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference, search for related cases

Path Two (keyword combinations)：

Group One: "affiliated companies" AND "commingling of corporate personalities" AND "joint and several liability"
Group Two: "horizontal disregard" OR "horizontal piercing" AND "disregard of corporate personality"
Group Three: "commingling of personnel" OR "commingling of finances" OR "commingling of business" AND "affiliated companies"

Path Three (reverse case search): Starting from "Xugong Group Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. et al., sales contract dispute case" (Guiding Case No. 15), search for subsequent judgments citing this case

II. Basic Information of the Pending Case

2.1 Legal Relationship

This case is a sales contract dispute. The plaintiff (creditor) has a sales contract relationship with Defendant One (debtor), and Defendant One has failed to pay the outstanding goods payment. Defendant Two, Defendant Three, and Defendant One are affiliated companies (controlled by the same actual controller), and the three companies are highly commingled in personnel, business, and finances. The plaintiff asserts that the three companies have commingled corporate personalities and requests that Defendant Two and Defendant Three bear joint and several liability for Defendant One's debt.

2.2 Issues in Dispute

Issue 1: Do Defendant Two, Defendant Three, and Defendant One constitute commingling of corporate personalities among affiliated companies?
Issue 2: If commingling of corporate personalities is constituted, should Defendant Two and Defendant Three bear joint and several liability for Defendant One's debt? (Application of horizontal disregard of corporate personality)
Issue 3: Should the actual controller bear joint and several liability for the company's debt?

2.3 Applicable Law

Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (2023 revision)
Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (2018 amendment)
Articles 10 and 11 of the Minutes of the National Courts' Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference (Minutes of the National Courts' Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference)
Article 6 (principle of fairness) and Article 7 (principle of good faith) of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

III. Core Cases (Group A: similarity ≥80%)

Case 1: Xugong Group Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. et al., sales contract dispute case

Case Number: (2011) Su Shang Zhong Zi No. 0107
Trial Court: Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court
Judgment Date: October 19, 2011
Case Type：Guiding Case No. 15(Issued by the Supreme People's Court on January 31, 2013)
Similarity Score：9.5/10

Summary of Case Facts: Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company owed Xugong Machinery Company over 10.91 million yuan in payment for goods. Chuanjiao Machinery Company, Ruilu Company, and Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company are affiliated companies, and the actual controller of the three companies is Wang Yongli. The managers of all three companies were Wang Yongli, the financial officers were all Ling Xin, the cashier accountants were all Lu Xin, and the person handling industrial and commercial procedures was Zhang Meng; there was cross-holding of management positions. The business scopes of the three companies overlapped, they were not clearly distinguished in external publicity, and they shared sales manuals and special seals for business contracts. In terms of finance, the three companies shared settlement accounts, and their funds and control could not be distinguished. The plaintiff claimed that the three companies had mixed personalities and demanded joint and several liability.

Issues in Dispute：

Do Chuanjiao Machinery Company, Ruilu Company, and Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company constitute mixed personalities?
If mixed personalities are constituted, should they bear joint and several liability for the debts of Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company?

Gist of the Judgment：

Where affiliated companies are crossed or mixed in personnel, business, finance, and other aspects, resulting in their respective properties being indistinguishable and loss of independent personality, this constitutes mixed personalities.
Where affiliated companies have mixed personalities and seriously harm the interests of creditors, the affiliated companies shall bear joint and several liability to each other for external debts.

Summary of Judgment Reasons: "The independence of a company's personality is the prerequisite for its independent liability as a legal person. Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Company Law provides: 'A company is an enterprise legal person, has independent legal person property, and enjoys legal person property rights. A company shall be liable for its debts with all of its property.' A company's independent property is the material guarantee for the company to bear liability independently, and the company's independent personality is also prominently manifested in the independence of property. When the property of affiliated companies cannot be distinguished and their independent personality is lost, the basis for bearing liability independently is lost. Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Company Law provides: 'Where shareholders of a company abuse the independent status of the company as a legal person and the limited liability of shareholders to evade debts and seriously harm the interests of creditors of the company, they shall bear joint and several liability for the debts of the company.' In this case, although the three companies were registered as mutually independent enterprise legal persons with the industrial and commercial registration authorities, in reality the boundaries between them were blurred and their personalities were mixed. Among them, Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company bore the debts of all affiliated companies but was unable to repay them, and also allowed other affiliated companies to evade huge debts, seriously harming the interests of creditors. The above acts violated the purpose for which the legal person system was established and violated the principle of good faith. The essence of the acts and the harmful results are equivalent to the circumstances specified in Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Company Law. Therefore, by reference to the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Company Law, Chuanjiao Machinery Company and Ruilu Company shall bear joint and several liability for the debts of Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company."

Reference Value: This case isGuiding Case No. 15 issued by the Supreme People's Court, it is a landmark case for the horizontal piercing of the corporate veil system. It established the criteria for determining personality confusion among affiliated companies (confusion of personnel, business, and finances) and the legal consequences (joint and several liability). This case is highly consistent with the pending case in terms of basic facts (affiliated company structure, the three types of confusion), the focus of the dispute (application of horizontal piercing of the corporate veil), and legal application (analogous application of Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Company Law), and has the strongest reference value.

Key differences: At the time of the judgment in this case, the Company Law had not yet explicitly provided for horizontal piercing of the corporate veil, and the court adopted the method of "referential application" of Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Company Law. After the 2023 amendment to the Company Law, Article 23, Paragraph 2 has explicitly provided for horizontal piercing of the corporate veil, making the legal application more direct.

Case 2: China Cinda Asset Management Corporation Chengdu Office v. Sichuan Tailai Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd. et al., a loan contract dispute case

Case number: (2008) Min Er Zhong Zi No. 55
Trial court: Supreme People's Court
Date of judgment: 2008
Case type：Gazette case
Similarity score：9/10

Summary of case facts: Sichuan Tailai Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd., Sichuan Tailai Housing Development Co., Ltd., and Sichuan Tailai Entertainment Co., Ltd. are affiliated companies, all actually controlled by Shen Huayuan. The three companies had confusion of personnel (cross-holding of management positions), confusion of finances (shared accounts, arbitrary transfer of funds), and confusion of business (overlapping business scope, confused external publicity). Cinda claimed that the three companies had confused personalities and demanded that they bear joint and several liability for the loan debt.

Focus of the dispute: Where affiliated companies have confused personalities, should they bear joint and several liability for each other's debts?

Gist of the judgment: Where a controlling shareholder or actual controller controls multiple subsidiaries or affiliated companies and abuses control to make the property boundaries of multiple subsidiaries or affiliated companies unclear, finances confused, interests transferred among them, and independent personality lost, reducing them to tools for the controlling shareholder to evade debts, engage in illegal business, or even commit crimes, the court may, based on the comprehensive facts of the case, deny the legal personality of the subsidiaries or affiliated companies and order them to bear joint and several liability.

Summary of the reasoning of the judgment: "Shen Huayuan, as the actual controller of the Shen companies, arbitrarily disposed of and confused the property and creditor-debtor relationships of each company, making it impossible to distinguish the personnel, property, and other aspects of each company, violating the purpose for which the legal person system was established, violating the principles of good faith and fairness, and harming the interests of creditors."

Reference value: This case is aSupreme People's Court Gazette case, and it established the adjudication rule for horizontal piercing of the corporate veil relatively early. It is highly similar to the pending case in key facts such as "multiple affiliated companies controlled by the same actual controller," "the three types of confusion," and "harm to creditors' interests." Its reasoning regarding "violating the purpose for which the legal person system was established" and "violating the principles of good faith and fairness" has important reference value for this case.

Key differences: The judgment in this case was rendered relatively early, and at that time there was controversy over whether Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Company Law applied to horizontal piercing of the corporate veil; the court ultimately adjudicated based on basic principles of civil law. Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the current Company Law has now explicitly provided for the rule of horizontal piercing of the corporate veil.

Case 3: A bank v. an industrial company et al., a financial loan contract dispute case (included case)

Case number: (2022) Supreme People's Court Civil Final No. XXX (Example)
Trial Court: Supreme People's Court
Judgment Date: 2022
Case Type：People's Court Case Database Included Case
Similarity Score：8.5/10

Summary of Case Facts: (As the specific case number requires searching the case database, a typical scenario is described here) There was a high degree of commingling between the debtor company and its affiliated companies: the legal representatives of the three companies were the same person, the financial personnel were the same, the office location was the same, bank accounts were shared, and funds flowed frequently between them with no way to distinguish the accounts. The creditor asserted that the affiliated companies should bear joint and several liability.

Issues in Dispute：

What is the standard for determining personality commingling of affiliated companies?
How is the burden of proof for horizontal piercing of the corporate veil allocated?

Gist of the Judgment: According to Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Company Law (applicable after the 2023 amendment) or by reference to Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Company Law, where the personalities of affiliated companies are commingled, they shall bear joint and several liability for each other's debts. In determining personality commingling, comprehensive consideration should be given to the degree of commingling in personnel, business, finance, and other aspects, as well as whether it results in assets being indistinguishable.

Reference Value: As a People's Court Case Database included case, according to Article 19 of the Working Rules for the Construction and Operation of the People's Court Case Database,shall be referencedand applied. This case and the pending case both belong to financial and commercial disputes and are highly similar in terms of affiliated company structure, commingling characteristics, and legal application.

Key Differences: This case may involve the special review obligations of financial institutions as creditors, which is slightly different from the ordinary sales contract relationship in the pending case.

IV. Important Reference Cases (Group B: Similarity 60-79%)

Case 4: Lei Moufu v. Chongqing Lanyu Company and Others, Case of Action by Outsider

Case Number: (2020) Supreme People's Court Civil Retrial No. XXX
Trial Court: Supreme People's Court
Judgment Date: 2020
Case Type: Supreme People's Court Judgment
Similarity Score：7/10

Summary of Case Facts: In enforcement proceedings, the creditor discovered that the debtor and an affiliated company had commingled personalities and applied to add the affiliated company as a person subject to enforcement. The court held that the horizontal piercing of the corporate veil system could still be applied at the enforcement stage and added the affiliated company as a person subject to enforcement.

Issues in Dispute: Can the horizontal piercing of the corporate veil system be applied at the enforcement stage?

Gist of the Judgment: Horizontal piercing of the corporate veil can still be applied at the enforcement stage to protect the creditor's interests.

Reference Value: This case resolved theprocedural applicationissue of horizontal piercing of the corporate veil and confirmed that an affiliated company may also be added as a person subject to enforcement at the enforcement stage. If the pending case enters enforcement proceedings, this case has important reference value.

Key Differences: This case concerns the issue of adding a person subject to enforcement in enforcement proceedings, which is slightly different from confirming joint and several liability at the litigation stage in the pending case.

Case 5: A Construction Company v. A Real Estate Development Company and Others, Construction Project Construction Contract Dispute

Case Number: (2019) A Provincial High Court Civil Final No. XXX
Trial Court: A certain province's Higher People's Court
Judgment Date: 2019
Case Type: Higher People's Court judgment
Similarity Score：6.5/10

Summary of Case Facts: The affiliated real estate development company and the construction company had personnel commingling (overlapping management personnel) and financial commingling (fund transfers without clear accounting records), but the degree of business commingling was relatively low (different business scopes). The court found that personality commingling was constituted, and joint and several liability was borne.

Issues in Dispute: When the degree of business commingling is relatively low, can personality commingling still be found?

Gist of the Judgment: The determination of personality commingling does not require all three types of commingling (personnel, business, and finance) to be present; it is sufficient if the degree of "property cannot be distinguished and independent personality is lost" is reached.

Reference Value: This case clarifies theflexible standardfor determining personality commingling, and still has reference value for pending cases where a certain commingling characteristic is not obvious.

Key Differences: This case is a dispute over a construction project contract, which differs from the sales contract relationship in the pending case; moreover, this case has lower requirements for business commingling, and is not fully consistent with the triple commingling characteristics of the pending case.

V. General Reference Cases (Group C: Similarity 40-59%)

No.	Case Name	Case No.	Trial Court	Gist of the Judgment	Reference Value
1	A certain trading company v. a certain group company et al., sales contract dispute case	(2017) XXX Civil First Instance No. of a certain intermediate court	A certain city intermediate people's court	Personnel commingling alone is insufficient to establish personality commingling; the degree of property being indistinguishable must be reached	Reverse reference: makes clear that a single type of commingling is insufficient
2	A certain bank v. a certain investment company et al., financial loan contract dispute case	(2021) XXX Civil Final No. of a certain high court	A certain province's Higher People's Court	There were fund borrowings between affiliated companies, but there were clear accounting records, so personality commingling was not found	Reverse reference: financial commingling requires "cannot be distinguished"
3	A certain technology company v. a certain software company et al., computer software development contract dispute case	(2020) Supreme Court Intellectual Civil Final No. XXX	Supreme People's Court	Standards for determining personality commingling of affiliated companies in intellectual property cases	Different field, but the determination standards may be referenced

VI. Opposing Cases (Group D)

Case 6: A certain industrial company v. a certain trading company et al., sales contract dispute case (personality commingling not found)

Case No.: (2018) XXX Civil Final No. of a certain intermediate court
Trial Court: A certain city intermediate people's court
Judgment Date: 2018
Case Type: General case

Summary of Case Facts: Although the three companies were controlled by the same actual controller and had some overlapping management personnel, the three companies each had independent financial departments, kept their own accounts, and had clear records of fund transactions, so their property could be distinguished. The court found that personality commingling was not constituted.

Gist of the Judgment: Cross-shareholding of personnel between affiliated companies is not sufficient to establish personality commingling; the key lies in whether financial commingling makes it impossible to distinguish the assets.

Analysis of Differences: The key difference between this case and the pending case lies in thedegree of financial commingling. The defendants in this case have independent financial departments, keep separate books, and have clear fund transactions, whereas the three defendant companies in the pending case share a settlement account, and their funds and control cannot be distinguished, resulting in a higher degree of financial commingling. Therefore, the contrary conclusion in this case does not apply to the pending case; rather, it indirectly confirms that the pending case meets the criteria for finding personality commingling.

VII. Summary of Adjudication Rules

7.1 Mainstream Adjudication Rules

Rule One: Criteria for Determining Personality Commingling of Affiliated Companies Where the personnel, business, finance and other aspects of affiliated companies overlap or are commingled, making it impossible to distinguish their respective assets and causing them to lose independent personality, personality commingling is constituted. Commingling in the three aspects (personnel, business, finance) is the main factor considered in determining personality commingling, butnot all are required; the core lies in whether it results in "assets being indistinguishable and independent personality being lost."

Rule Two: Legal Consequences of Horizontal Piercing of the Corporate Veil Where the personality of affiliated companies is commingled and the interests of creditors are seriously harmed, the affiliated companies shall bear joint and several liability to each other for external debts. After the 2023 revision of the Company Law, Article 23, Paragraph 2 clearly provides: "Where a shareholder uses two or more companies under its control to commit the acts specified in the preceding paragraph, each company shall bear joint and several liability for the debts of any one company."

Rule Three: Allocation of Burden of Proof Where a creditor asserts personality commingling of affiliated companies, it shall provide preliminary evidence proving the existence of commingling facts (overlap of personnel, business, and finance). If the affiliated companies deny it, they shall provide evidence proving the independence of their assets (such as separate account books, independent accounting, etc.).

Rule Four: Liability of the Actual Controller Where an actual controller abuses the independent legal personality of the company and the limited liability of shareholders to evade debts and seriously harm the interests of the company's creditors, it shall bear joint and several liability for the company's debts. However,merely knowing of the personality commingling of affiliated companies is not sufficient to constitute joint and several liability; it is necessary to prove that the actual controller's own assets are commingled with the company's assets or that the actual controller committed abusive acts.

7.2 Minority/Exceptional Adjudication Rules

Exception One: A Single Type of Commingling Is Insufficient Some courts hold that where only personnel commingling or business commingling exists, but finances are independent and assets can be distinguished, personality commingling is not constituted.

Exception Two: Consideration of Industry Particularities In industries with group-based management and centralized financial management, appropriate fund transfers and personnel sharing are not found to be commingling.

Exception Three: Procedural Limitations A few courts hold that horizontal piercing of the corporate veil should be resolved at the litigation stage, and it is inappropriate to directly add affiliated companies as persons subject to enforcement at the enforcement stage (however, the latest adjudication trend of the Supreme People's Court has made clear that it may also apply at the enforcement stage).

7.3 Analysis of Adjudication Trends

Trend One: From "Application by Reference" to "Direct Application" Guiding Case No. 15 of 2013 adopted the approach of "application by reference" to Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Company Law; Article 11 of the 2019 Minutes of the National Courts' Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference clarified the rule of horizontal piercing of the corporate veil; Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the 2023 Company Law formally established the system of horizontal piercing of the corporate veil, and the application of law shifted from analogical application to direct application.

Trend Two: The Determination Standard Has Moved from Strict to Lenient and Then to Moderate Early judgments were relatively strict in finding personality confusion, requiring all three types of confusion to be present; after Guiding Case No. 15, the standard was moderately relaxed, emphasizing the core criterion that "property cannot be distinguished"; recent judgments have trended toward greater refinement, focusing on substantive fairness and creditor protection.

Trend Three: Expansion of Procedural Application From confirming joint and several liability at the litigation stage, to adding the person subject to enforcement at the enforcement stage, and then to substantive consolidation in bankruptcy proceedings, the procedures for applying horizontal piercing of the corporate veil have become increasingly well developed.

VIII. Search Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1 Search Conclusions

Application of Law: After the 2023 revision of the Company Law, Article 23, Paragraph 2 has expressly provided for the horizontal piercing of the corporate veil system, and pending cases may directly apply this provision without needing to "apply by reference" Article 20, Paragraph 3.
Factual Findings: In the pending case, the three defendant companies havepersonnel confusion(the same actual controller and cross-holding of management positions),business confusion(overlapping business scope and confused external publicity),financial confusion(shared settlement accounts and funds that cannot be distinguished), which meets the criteria for finding personality confusion established by Guiding Case No. 15.
Judicial Trends: The Supreme People's Court and courts in various localities have become stricter in finding personality confusion among affiliated companies, focusing on protecting creditors' interests, and the pending case has a relatively high likelihood of success.
Risk Alert: Attention must be paid to collecting and preserving evidence of financial confusion (bank statements, accounting records, etc.), as this is the key to finding personality confusion.

8.2 Reference Recommendations for the Target Case

Litigation Strategy Recommendations：

Application of Law: Directly cite Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Company Law (2023 revision), and also cite Guiding Case No. 15 as the basis for reasoning.
Evidence Organization：
- Personnel confusion: collect the three companies' business registration information, management appointment documents, social security contribution records, etc.
- Business confusion: collect the three companies' external publicity materials, business contracts, evidence of overlapping customers, etc.
- Financial confusion: apply to the court to obtain the three companies' bank account statements and financial ledgers to prove shared accounts and commingled funds
Submission of Similar Cases: Give priority to submitting Guiding Case No. 15, the Gazette Case (2008) Min Er Zhong Zi No. 55, and similar judgments by the local high court or higher courts.
Responding to Contrary Cases: Anticipate that the opposing party may submit contrary cases holding that "a single type of confusion is insufficient," and prepare in advance evidence proving that this case involves severe confusion of all three types and that the financial confusion reaches the level where "property cannot be distinguished."

Document Drafting Recommendations：

In the complaint/attorney's statement, develop the argument according to the logical chain of "personnel confusion -> business confusion -> financial confusion -> loss of independent personality -> serious harm to creditors' interests -> joint and several liability," citing the holding of Guiding Case No. 15 as the core support.

8.3 Explanation of Search Limitations

Time Limitations: This search mainly covers cases before 2024, and the latest judgments after the 2023 revision of the Company Law have not yet been fully included, which may affect the grasp of the latest judicial trends.
Geographical Limitations: This search primarily focuses on cases from the Supreme People's Court and the higher people's courts of each province; the specific adjudication rules of the court hearing the pending case (such as a basic-level court or an intermediate court in a particular region) may not be fully covered.
Factual Differences: The specific factual details of the pending case (such as the degree of commingling and the consequences of damage) may differ slightly from the searched cases, and the final determination must be made by the court based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence in the case.
Legal Updates: After the 2023 revision of the Company Law, the reasoning of "application by reference" in some older cases has become outdated and must be reunderstood in light of the provisions of the new law.

Search Date: 2024 Month XX, Day XX
Searcher：XXX
Reviewer：XXX

About this skill

Overview table

Legal statement

I. Retrieval foundations and ways of thinking

1.1 Description of similar case retrieval

1.2 Three scenarios of retrieval

1.3 Purpose of retrieval use

II. Preparation before retrieval: characterization of the issue

2.1 Collection of background information

2.2 Channels for information collection

2.3 Determining the scope of retrieval

III. Search Elements and Keyword Extraction

3.1 Search Element Extraction Checklist

A. Basic elements (must be extracted)

B. Factual elements (extract as much as possible)

C. Limiting elements (extract as needed)

3.2 Classification and Extraction of Keywords

Four methods of keyword extraction:

3.3 Examples of Keyword Combinations

IV. Search Methods and Paths

4.0 Data Sources and Tool Invocation Conventions (Mandatory)

4.1 Search Paths

V. Case Similarity Assessment

5.1 Definition and Identification Criteria of Similar Cases

5.2 Similarity Assessment Dimensions and Weights

5.2.1 Dimension One: Consistency of Legal Relationship (Weight 30%)

5.2.2 Dimension Two: Correspondence of Issues in Dispute (Weight 25%)

5.2.3 Dimension Three: Similarity of Key Facts (Weight 25%)

5.2.4 Dimension Four: Reference to Adjudication Rules (Weight 15%)

5.2.5 Dimension Five: Relevance of Procedural Issues (Weight 5%)

5.3 Comprehensive Assessment and Grouping

VI. Case Screening and Ranking

5.1 Case Screening Standards

6.1.1 Hierarchy standard (validity priority)

6.1.2 Regional standard (jurisdictional connection)

6.1.3 Temporal standard (timeliness)

6.1.4 Procedural standard (rigor of trial level)

6.1.5 Background standard (special endorsement)

6.1.6 Importance standard (degree of major, difficult, and complex)

6.1.7 Validity Verification and Risk Verification

6.8.1 Confirm that the judgment has taken effect

6.8.2 Confirm that the judgment has not been revoked

6.8.3 Confirming that a judgment is risk-free

6.2 Rules for case ordering and handling conflicts

6.2.1 Classification of direct-line, collateral, and out-of-system cases (the basis for priority for similar level)

6.2.2 Eight Specific Handling Rules

VII. Organization of Search Results and Report Preparation

7.1 Case Information Extraction Template

Basic Information

Party Information

Summary of Case Facts

Issues in Dispute

Gist of the Judgment

Applicable Law

Judgment Result

Search Assessment

7.2 Standard Structure of a Search Report

7.3 Preparation Techniques and Points to Note

VIII. Complete Sample Report: Similar Case Search Report on Horizontal Disregard of Corporate Personality

I. Search Description

1.1 Search Questions

1.2 Search Tools

1.3 Search Methods

II. Basic Information of the Pending Case

2.1 Legal Relationship

2.2 Issues in Dispute

2.3 Applicable Law

III. Core Cases (Group A: similarity ≥80%)

Case 1: Xugong Group Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. et al., sales contract dispute case

Case 2: China Cinda Asset Management Corporation Chengdu Office v. Sichuan Tailai Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd. et al., a loan contract dispute case

Case 3: A bank v. an industrial company et al., a financial loan contract dispute case (included case)

IV. Important Reference Cases (Group B: Similarity 60-79%)

Case 4: Lei Moufu v. Chongqing Lanyu Company and Others, Case of Action by Outsider

Case 5: A Construction Company v. A Real Estate Development Company and Others, Construction Project Construction Contract Dispute

V. General Reference Cases (Group C: Similarity 40-59%)

VI. Opposing Cases (Group D)

Case 6: A certain industrial company v. a certain trading company et al., sales contract dispute case (personality commingling not found)

VII. Summary of Adjudication Rules

7.1 Mainstream Adjudication Rules