由最高人民法院提出的“穿透式审判”思维模式已经成为了民商事纠纷领域法官审理案件的常用术语。但穿透式审判本身概念界定存在模糊性，在学术领域与司法实践领域均存在混用、误用的现象，并存在逐渐概念泛化甚至滥用的趋势。如何在民商事审判中正确认识并适用穿透式审判，是一个具有理论和实践双重价值的重要课题。在我国民商事司法实践中，存在大量“名实不符”的案件，其成因与解决方案值得探寻。原理论上，“穿透式审判”与实体法上的外观主义和裁判理念上的实质主义密切相关。实体法上，“外观主义”理论发轫于日耳曼法，经韦尔斯巴赫的权利外观理论建构成型，并在后世的发展中泛化至意思表示与程序法的范畴，最终回归狭义的权利外观。裁判理念上，法律形式主义可以从罗马法严格的诉讼程式中提取基因，形式主义与实质主义的互相倾轧在大陆法系和普通法系中均有体现。类型论上，“穿透式审判”基于主要穿透对象的不同，可以分为“权利外观型”穿透式审判、“隐藏意思型”穿透式审判和“诉讼主体型”穿透式审判，分类标准与原理论中的外观主义历史一脉相承。“权利外观型”穿透式审判着重处理以物权登记为代表的受信权利外观问题，明确权利表征的权利推定作用和公示公信力。“隐藏意思型”穿透式审判解决“阴阳合同”问题与“名实不符”的交易问题，通过对于当事人意思表示的解释进行审查，构建恰当的法律关系。“诉讼主体型”穿透式审判基于外观事实和纠纷一次性解决的需要，穿透复杂的当事人法律关系，寻找真正的诉讼主体。穿透式审判能够解决交易不公问题，但几乎必然带来诉讼标的的变更和诉的合并，过度滥用可能形成“审判监管化”的问题。为规范“穿透式审判”的应用，本文主张从启动规范、适用规范与结果规范三个层面构建“规范性”穿透式审判。在启动穿透式审判时，法官应主动分析争议法律关系的内外部关系性质，通过交易风险判断简化复杂交易结构的必要性，不拘泥于意思表示的名义，发现当事人真实意思表示。适用规范上，法官应明确外观事实的权利推定作用，符合意思表示解释理论与释明规范。最后，法官应注意穿透式审判后的法律关系修复，避免程序空转。规范发展穿透式审判，需要明确本土意识，加强本土逻辑，发展适合中国国情的穿透式审判理念。

The “look-through trial” thinking model, proposed by the Supreme People's Court, has become a prevalent term in the adjudication of civil and commercial disputes by judges. However, the precise conceptual delineation of the “look-through trial” remains nebulous, with instances of its confusion and misuse prevalent in both scholarly discourse and judicial practice. Furthermore, there is an observable trend towards gradual conceptual generalization and potential misuse. The accurate comprehension and application of the look-through trial in civil and commercial adjudication present a significant dual-valued topic for both theory and practice. Within the judicial practices of civil and commercial affairs in China, a considerable number of cases display a dissonance between their form and substance, prompting an examination of their origins and potential resolutions.In theoretical terms, the “look-through trial” closely associates with substantive law formalism and the philosophy of adjudication. In the realm of substantive law, the roots of formalism can be traced back to German law, evolving into the theory of the appearance of rights as articulated by Wellspacher, and subsequently extending in later developments to encompass the realms of expressions of intent and procedural law, ultimately converging towards the narrower concept of the appearance of rights. Within the philosophy of adjudication, legal formalism draws upon the stringent proceduralism of Roman law, with the tension between formalism and substantive law evident in both civil law and common law systems.Categorically, the "look-through trial" can be classified into “appearance-based” look-through trial, “hidden-meaning-based” look-through trial, and “litigant-based” look-through trial, contingent upon the primary target of the look-through action. These classifications maintain a lineage with the historical evolution of formalism in theory. “Appearance-based” look-through trial primarily addresses issues concerning the appearance of rights, particularly exemplified by property rights registration, clarifying the presumptive role and public credibility of rights representation. On the other hand, “hidden-meaning-based” look-through trial addresses concerns related to “ambiguous contracts” and transactions where the “form does not match the substance”, by scrutinizing the interpretations of the parties' expressions of intent to construct suitable legal relationships. “Litigant-based” look-through trial, driven by the necessity to resolve factual appearances and disputes in a singular step, involves the unraveling of complex legal relationships among the parties to discern the true litigants. While the look-through trial presents a potential resolution to issues of unfair transactions, it inevitably entails alterations in the subject matter of litigation and the consolidation of claims, with excessive application risking the emergence of issues pertaining to “judicial supervision”.To standardize the application of the “look-through trial”, this paper advocates for the development of a normative approach to the look-through trial across three dimensions: initiation norms, application norms, and outcome norms. During the initiation of the look-through trial, judges should proactively analyze the internal and external relationships of the disputed legal relationships, evaluate the necessity of simplifying complex transaction structures through the assessment of transaction risks, while remaining unfettered by the nominal expressions of intent to uncover the true intentions of the parties involved. In terms of application norms, judges should elucidate the presumptive role of appearances of facts, aligning with theories of interpretation of expressions of intent and clarifying norms. Finally, judges should remain attentive to the restoration of legal relationships subsequent to the look-through trial to mitigate procedural idleness. The normative development of the look-through trial necessitates a clear articulation of local consciousness, a strengthening of local logic, and the evolution of a look-through trial concept harmonious with the unique circumstances of Chinese legal traditions.