B. Whether there exists a mutual guarantee between Korea and Korea from the perspective of common law of Australia

B. Under the common law of the Australia, even if the requirements for approval are met, the recognition of the existence of the obligation established by a foreign judgment rather than the recognition of the foreign judgment itself. Therefore, for enforcement of this, not simply seeking a judgment of execution, but also filing a lawsuit in accordance with the general litigation procedure with its cause of claim and undergoing a new judgment. Thus, there is no mutual guarantee between Korea and Korea where a foreign judgment is approved by a formal judgment does not exist.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below acknowledged the contents of the Act on the Mutual Execution of Family Judgment in Australia as stated in its reasoning. According to the above law, there are time constraints in the registration of a foreign judgment in a short term, and practical examination of the substance of the foreign judgment is conducted, and the country subject to the above law is decided as a general order, so there is a lack of legal stability, and as long as the foreign judgment prior to the issuance of a general order is refused to be governed by the above law, the position of Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea, which recognizes the foreign judgment, cannot be viewed as the existence of mutual guarantee between the enactment of the above law and the enactment of the Australian country. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or mutual guarantee, such as the

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected part of the evidence that there is a mutual guarantee under Article 203 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea under the common law of the Australia, and acknowledged the existence of the obligation established by a foreign judgment, not by a foreign judgment, even in the case where each approval requirements of the judgment are met under the common law of the Australia based on the adopted evidence, and therefore, the court below acknowledged the existence of the obligation established by a foreign judgment, not by a foreign judgment, even in the case where each approval requirements of the judgment are met under the common law of the Australia. Therefore, in order to enforce this, not simply seek a judgment of execution but by a claim, a lawsuit is filed in accordance with the general litigation procedure with the cause of the claim and a new judgment should be obtained. Thus, in light of the records, the court below's above judgment and measures are just, and there

3. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)