SHI Guanghui | Partner
Practices:Dispute Resolution|Real Estate and Construction|Commercial Services
Telephone:+86 10 6502 8950
Fax:+86 10 6502 8866
Working Language:Chinese | English

Basic information


2008-2011 | Renmin University of China | Master of Civil and Commercial Law

1999-2003 | Anshan University of Science and Technology | Bachelor of law

Work Experience

2017-present | Beijing Hylands Law Firm | Partner

2014-2017 | Beijing Zhengzun Law Firm | Partner

2008-2014 | Beijing Hylands Law Firm | Lawyer

2007-2008 | Beijing Dadi Law Firm | Lawyer

2006-2007 | Shandong Mingyang Law Firm | Lawyer

2004-2007 | Shandong Huihai Law Firm | Lawyer

2003-2004 | State-owned Qingdao Shipyard | Secretary

Professional Qualifications

2004 | P. R. China Legal Professional Qualification

Representative Cases

■ Dispute Resolution and Litigation

2019 | Xu Shiyong is the husband of Han Yanling. Xu Shiyong had labor relations with Beijing Tongshun Racecourse Co., Ltd. At around 8:20 a.m. on Sept. 15, 2018, Xu Shiyong proceeded to Xuxinzhuang Health Center for a stomach upset during work, and then returned to the workplace for work. Feeling under the weather, Xu Shiyong asked for time off work at 16:36. Xu went into a coma in the dormitory at about 18:00, and was rushed to Luhe Hospital by emergency treatment by ambulance. At about 20 o’clock, Xu Shiyong died despite rescue efforts. Beijing Tongshun Racecourse Co., Ltd. applied to Tongzhou District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau for certification of work-related injury. The Bureau issued the Decision on Not Recognizing Work-related Injury on November 23, 2018. Commissioned by Han Yanling, the lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit on the grounds that the decision by Tongzhou District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau is based on an error of fact and that the applicable law was mistakenly applied. Tongzhou District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau took the initiative to revoke the Decision on Not Recognizing Work-related Injury and re-recognized that the death of Xu Shiyong constitutes work-related injury;

2019 | LeTV Sports Culture (Development) Co., Ltd. | Beijing Chaoyang District Administration for Market Regulation issued the JGSCCZ No. D 46100 Written Decision of Administrative Penalty on May 20, 2019 to revoke the business license of LeTV Sports on the grounds that LeTV Sports did not commence business for more than six months after its establishment without a good cause or ceased operations for more than six consecutive months after its operations. Commissioned by LeTV Sports, the lawyer applied to the Zhaoyang District Administration for Market Regulation for administrative reconsideration on the grounds that it is a case of mistakenly ascertaining the facts if it is ascertained that LeTV Sports violates procedure of administrative penalty if it does not commence operations for more than six months after establishment, or that it ceases operations for more than six consecutive months after its commencement of operations. Chaoyang District Administration for Market Regulation took the initiative to revoke administrative penalty and the restore the business license of LeTV Sports;

2018 | Tianjin Jianbang Investment and Development Co., Ltd. | After Jianbang lawfully acquired the land in the form of paid transfer, the Dongli District Land and Resources Branch of Tianjin Land and Resources and Housing Administration recovered the land involved in the case, and ordered Jianbang Company, Dongli District Land and Resources Branch and Tianjin Binli Town Construction and Development Co., Ltd. to sign the Agreement on the Termination of the Transfer of State-owned Construction Land Use Rights, which stipulates the cancellation of the transfer contract, the amount of indemnity, payer, term of payment, etc., but without stipulating the default clauses and compensation clauses. After Jianbang honored the contract, Dongli District Land Bureau and Binli Company did not pay indemnity. The case chiefly involves the following legal and factual issues: the validity of the agreement concerned, whether it is a civil lawsuit or an administrative lawsuit, whether the indemnity stipulated in the contract includes the losses incurred by Jianbang Company due to the recovery of land use rights, whether to sue against Dongli District Land Bureau and Binli Company or one of them, how to ascertain the losses of Jianbang Company, etc. Commissioned by Jianbang, the lawyer filed a civil lawsuit. The court ruled that the defendant should pay over 200 million yuan in principal and interest as indemnity. The appeal of Jianbang was fully realized;

2018 | In January 2013, Journal of Neurotrauma, an American academic journal, published “Protective Effects of Taurine Against Closed Head Injury in Rats” by Sun Ming, Zhao Yumei, Gu Yi, and Zhang Yazhuo at the online editing stage. The editorial department of the journal published the full text on the official website on May 12, 2014. Xu Chao claimed that the four authors infringed his copyright, requested the court to rule that Zhang Yazhuo was not the corresponding author and to withdraw the paper, and to rule the defendant to apologize, make indemnity for mental losses and reasonable expenses in litigation on the grounds that the main body of the paper was obtained from the content of patent presided over and guided by him and the application materials for the anti-cerebral trauma effect of the new drug taurine sodium chloride. The four defendants claimed that Xu Chao did not own the copyright on the paper under question, the research carried out by the article under question was not the same as previous research by Xu Chao, the paper under question cites previous patents and works within a reasonable scope and lists the references, Xu Chao did not contribute to the selection, approval, and implementation of scientific research project involved in the article under question, and did not contribute to the writing and revision of the article under question, and Xu Chao should not be an author. As Xu Chao is not the author of the article under question and has no right to object to the order and status of the authors, the court rejected Xu Chao’s appeal in the first and second instances;

2018 | On July 16, 2012, the lender Xia Ming signed the Loan Agreement with the borrower Jin Zhenhua, the guarantor Fang Wancheng and Xinyongzheng Company, stipulating that the lender makes a loan of 10 million yuan to the borrower, and the lender commissions a third party to pay the loan. It also stipulates the loan interest, duration, guarantee responsibility, etc. Xia Ming issued the loan as agreed. Xinyongzheng Company claims that upon expiration of the term of loan, Xinyongzheng Company, as the guarantor, paid on September 24, 2012 an amount of 10 million yuan to the payee designated by Xia Ming, and honored the guarantee responsibility. Xinyongzheng claimed that Lepu Pharmaceuticals (Beijing) Co., Ltd. issued a Letter of Commitment to it as a counter guarantee for Jin Zhenhua’s debt to Xinyongzheng Company. The scope of the guarantee is the balance of the total amount of engineering payment payable by Yongzhen Pharmaceuticals to Zhenxia Air Conditioning Company minus the payment already paid to Zhenxia Air Conditioning Company, and the guarantee duration is 5 years. Xinyongzheng Company filed a suit against Jin Zhenhua and Lepu Pharmaceuticals, requiring Jin Zhenhua to pay the principal and interest of 10 million yuan, and Lepu Pharmaceuticals assumes the liability of guarantee for unpaid engineering payment. Jin Zhenhua defended that he was not aware of the Letter of Commitment, the Letter of Commitment had no force of law for him, and the lawsuit by Xinyongzheng was over the prescribed period for litigation. The court rejected the lawsuit against Jin Zhenhua after the second instance as the final;

2016 | China Construction Engineering Design Group Co., Ltd. | China Construction Engineering Design and Jinghua Investment Co., Ltd. concluded the Construction Engineering Design Contract, in which China Construction Engineering Design provided planning and design for a project. The contract stipulates the total price of design, terms of payment, and liability for breach of contract. China Construction Engineering Design delivered to Jinghua the design outcomes, for which Jinghua’s staff signed for acceptance. Jinghua only paid the first installment, without paying the balance. China Construction Engineering Design sued for the payment of the balance and liquidated damages. Jinghua argued that it did not receive the design outcomes, and the design outcomes were not approved by relevant authorities. The court supported the lawsuit request of China Construction Engineering Design in the second instance as the final ruling;

2015 | Beijing Kaihengchen Technology Development Co., Ltd. | Bank of China Beijing Branch and Kaihengchen signed the Agreement on Discount of Domestic Commercial Invoices and Application for Domestic Rongxinda Business with Recourse, stipulating that Kaihengchen transfers the creditor’s rights for receivables under the purchase and sale contract with Anping Deming Mesh Co., Ltd. to Bank of China Beijing Branch and applied for financing from Bank of China Beijing Branch based on the total amount of receivables. Bank of China Beijing Branch sent the Notice of Transfer of Accounts Receivable to Anping Deming, which confirmed the Notice by affixing the stamp to the receipt. When the receivables were due, Anping Deming made part of the payment to the bank account opened by Kaihengchen at Bank of China Beijing Branch, and the balance of over 950,000 yuan was paid to the other bank accounts of Kaihengchen. Bank of China Beijing Branch sued Anping Deming for payment of accounts receivable and liquidated damages, and Kaihengchen bore responsibility for the repurchase of the debts not paid by Anping Deming. Kaihengchen raised deference on the grounds that there is a major defect in the notice of transfer of creditor’s rights issued by Bank of China Beijing Branch, the two parties did not stipulate the obligation of Kaihengchen to repurchase, Anping Deming has actually made the payment in full, the nature of receivables and the right holders are not distinguished, and the court should rule to reject the appeal. The case was remanded for retrial in the second instance for retrial. Bank of China Beijing Branch withdrew the appeal against Kaihengchen.

Social Activity

2019|Labor and Social Security Law Committee of Beijing lawyers Association|Member


2007|Co-author of Life and Law 300 Questions|Law Press