[2] Criteria for determining "mutual guarantee" under Article 217 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, and whether the existence of mutual guarantee constitutes an ex officio examination by the court (affirmative)

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground of incomplete hearing as to whether there exists a mutual guarantee between our country and the North Mararia system, an autonomous order of the United States of America

[2] If the requirements for recognition of the same kind of judgment between our country and foreign country are not considerably balanced, the requirements prescribed in a foreign country are not excessive as a whole, and there is no substantial difference in important points, it is reasonable to deem that the requirements for mutual guarantee under Article 217 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act have been satisfied. In addition, the mutual guarantee is sufficient if the requirements for recognition are compared with those under the laws, precedents, and practices of a foreign country, and there is no need to conclude a treaty with a foreign country, and it is sufficient if it is possible to expect that the foreign country will actually approve the same kind of judgment, even if there is no case where the judgment of a foreign country is approved, and the fact that there is such mutual guarantee is a mutual guarantee should be investigated ex officio by the court.

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground of incomplete hearing as to whether there exists a mutual guarantee between our country and the North Mararia system, an autonomous order of the United States of America

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below ruled that there is no possibility that the plaintiffs would be in violation of the law of the Republic of Korea on April 12, 199 with respect to the foreign country's enforcement of the law of the Republic of Korea on the grounds that the law of the Republic of Korea's enforcement of the law of the Republic of Korea and the law of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter "the law of the Republic of Korea") would be in violation of the law of the Republic of Korea on the grounds that there is no possibility that the plaintiffs would be in violation of the law of the law of the Republic of Korea on the grounds that the foreign country's enforcement of the law of the Republic of Korea's enforcement of the law of the Republic of Korea and the law of the Republic of Korea on the grounds that the foreign country's enforcement of the law of the Republic of Korea would be in violation of the law of the Republic of Korea's enforcement of the law of the Republic of Korea's enforcement of the law of the Republic of Korea, and that there is no possibility that the plaintiffs would be in violation of social order.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Judgment on the ground of appeal as to the violation of good customs or other social order or abuse of right

According to Article 27(2)2 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 217 subparag. 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, recognition and enforcement of a final judgment of a foreign court (hereinafter referred to as "foreign judgment") should not be contrary to good morals and other social order of the Republic of Korea. The content of the foreign judgment itself is contrary to good morals and other social order, as well as where it violates good morals and other social order in the formation procedure of the foreign judgment, it shall include reasons for refusing recognition and enforcement. However, even if the foreign judgment itself is contrary to good morals and other social order, it shall be subject to investigation of proper and proper judgment," in Article 27(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and in fact, it cannot be permitted to review the legality and wrong of the foreign judgment as a whole under the pretext of examining whether it is a judgment obtained by fraud, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as being contrary to the purport of separate enforcement judgment system of the foreign judgment, and thus, recognition or enforcement procedure of the foreign judgment cannot be denied in light of Article 6(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act and its grounds for retrial.

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the foreign judgment of this case should be rejected because it was obtained by deceiving the court by using documents that were forged, altered, or discarded, or because it did not order concurrent performance, constitutes an abuse of rights. It is just in light of the above purport, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 217 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, as otherwise alleged in

In addition, the judgment (Supreme Court Decision 96Da4862 delivered on September 12, 1997) that points out by the Defendants in relation to the claim for the judgment of execution of this case constitutes abuse of rights is different from the case, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

Therefore, the defendants' above ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

B. Determination of the ground of appeal on the absence of mutual guarantee

Article 217 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act requires a "mutual guarantee as an approval requirement for a foreign judgment in order to prevent disadvantages that can be borne only by our country and promote equity in international relations," but considering that the recognition requirements for a foreign judgment in the country of judgment are too narrow to the extent of recognition of the foreign judgment because the recognition requirements are too narrow to that of our country, and rather result in unreasonable result that our country and foreign country refuse to approve the judgment in our country, rather than in our country, it is reasonable to deem that the same recognition requirements for a foreign judgment are not considerably balanced, the requirements for a foreign judgment are not excessive than those determined in our country, and the requirements prescribed in our country are not excessive, and there is no substantial difference in the important points, and it is sufficient that the mutual guarantee requirements meet the requirements for a mutual guarantee as provided in Article 217 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that if it is recognized by comparison with the approval requirements for a foreign country's statutes, precedents, and custom, it is sufficient that our court has to make ex officio approval of the same kind of judgment.

However, we cannot agree with the reasoning that the court below held that there exists a mutual guarantee between the North Marinia system and the Republic of Korea in this case as follows.

기록에 비추어 살피건대, 북마리아나 제도의 설립을 위한 미합중국과의 협정(The Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, 이하 '협정'이라고만 한다) 제403조 (a)항에 의하면 이 사건 외국판결이 내려질 당시 북마리아나 제도 대법원의 판결에 대하여 미합중국의 관할 연방항소법원(제9순회항소법원)에 상소할 수 있었지만 이는 연방문제(federal question)가 관련된 경우에 한하는 것일 뿐 그렇지 아니한 사건에 대하여는 북마리아나 제도 대법원의 판결이 최종심의 판결이 되는 것이므로, 연방문제와 관련이 없는 이 사건 외국판결에 대하여 미합중국의 관할 연방항소법원에 상소할 수 있었다거나, 그 연방항소법원의 소재지인 캘리포니아주에서 모델승인법을 채택하였고 그 승인요건이 우리 나라의 그것과 대체로 동일하다는 이유로 금전지급판결에 관하여 북마리아나 제도와 우리 나라 사이에 상호보증이 있다고 본 것은 잘못이라 할 것이다. 따라서 이 점을 지적하는 상고이유의 주장은 이유 있다.

However, the fact that there is a mutual guarantee should be investigated by the court ex officio, as alleged by the plaintiffs in the original judgment. Article 3401 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the common law of the United States of America, as organized in the Lease Treaty established by the United States Law Association, shall be a supplementary law unless there is a sexual law or customary law against it, or at least it is an important standard for interpretation of the common law of the United States of America in the Northern Maria or system, and furthermore, if the requirements for approval as provided in the relevant Lease Act are similar to the Model Approval Act, the court below should have determined that there is a mutual guarantee between the Republic of Korea and the North Ireland or the United States of America, even though it did not explicitly adopt the Model Approval Act in the United States of America, in light of the general principles on mutual guarantee, even if it did not adopt the said Model Approval Act, the court below should have determined that there is a mutual guarantee between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea on the payment judgment and the Republic of Korea Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)