집행판결 등
1. The counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The Grand High Court between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 1, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the manufacture and sale of Medium pyer as designated by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff purchased certain materials necessary for production in advance.
B. On March 31, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of damages for non-processed goods with the materials4043 of the District Court of Tae Manncheon District Court of 99, and on March 31, 2011, the said court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of USD 94,996 and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 10, 201 to the date of liquidation.
C. On January 28, 2014, the Defendant appointed an attorney-at-law and appealed to the Taiwan High Court. On January 28, 2014, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for interest exceeding USD 72,8926, and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of appeal (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The instant judgment became final and conclusive on April 28, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. 1) In order for a judgment of a foreign court to be approved and executed in Korea, the requirements stipulated in Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Act, i.e., the final judgment of the foreign court to be recognized and executed, i.e., the international jurisdiction of the foreign court in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Republic of Korea or the principle of international jurisdiction under the laws and regulations of the Republic of Korea (No. 1), ii) the defendant who has lost was served, or not served, with the time limit necessary for defense in a lawful manner (No. 2), iii) the confirmation of the judgment does not violate the good morals and other social order of the Republic of Korea (No. 3), and iv. mutual guarantee (No. 4). 2) The judgment of this case can be approved in Korea.