The main jurisdictional principle in Taiwanese Civil Procedure Law, protecting the defendant by forcing the plaintiff to bring the action in the defendant's forum domicilii, is subject to some important exceptions. Those exceptions give the plaintiff the option, to sue the defendant in the court of another forum other than his domicile. The base of jurisdiction used by special jurisdiction involve connections between the cause of action and the court on which jurisdiction is conferred. This jurisdictional principle applies both to the domestic and international jurisdiction to adjudicate.This freedom of plaintiff's choice is introduced in view of the existence in a particularly close relationship between a dispute and the court which may be most conveniently called upon to take cognizance of the matter. For example, Article 12 of Taiwanese Civil Procedure Law confers jurisdiction 'in matters relating to a contract' on 'the courts for the place of performance of the obligation'. This applies to contract in general.The concept of contractual dispute (”in matters relation to a contract”) should be interpreted autonomously on the principles of international civil procedure rules and does not depend on whether the relationship is classified as contractual in the domestic law. This means that there can be neither gaps nor overlapping between tort and contract. The classification of International jurisdiction on tort should be interoperated as a non-contractual liability.In ECJ case law, the place of performance has to be determined according to the private law referred to by the choice of law rules of the forum (Tessili Rule). However, the application of Tessili rule to a contract involving different obligations could result into a split of competence. This essay argues that to determine the place of performance on jurisdictional issue, it shall be presumed that the contract is most closely connected with the country where the party who is to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract.