2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the Defendant respectively from September 1, 2003, the amount of KRW 5 million, October 9, 2003, and from the end of 2006 to February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff sought payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim. The Defendant asserts that the international jurisdiction over the instant case is within the Japanese Court, and that the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. Judgment on the existence of international jurisdiction

(a) Whether or not to allow a defense for lack of jurisdiction;

The issue of international jurisdiction is logically prior to the issue of jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea, and is to be determined in accordance with the principle of expectation of fairness, appropriateness, and speed between the parties. Since it simply goes beyond the point of view of litigation economy and puts the public interest consideration on the operation of the civil trial system in Korea including the relationship with the other countries, the argument of violation of international jurisdiction under Article 411 of the Civil Procedure Act is not applicable to the argument of violation of international jurisdiction, so the defense of international jurisdiction is possible in the appellate court.

B. Determination criteria of international jurisdiction

Article 2(1) of the Private International Act provides, “Where a party or a case in dispute is substantially related to the Republic of Korea, the court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall comply with reasonable principles consistent with the ideology of allocation of international jurisdiction in determining the existence or absence of substantial relation.” Then, Article 2(2) provides, “the court shall consider the existence or absence of the international jurisdiction, taking into account the provisions of the domestic law, and shall fully consider the special nature of the international jurisdiction in light of the purport of the provision of paragraph(1).” Thus, the international jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring the appropriateness, speed and economy of the parties, as well as individual interests, such as equity, convenience and predictability of the parties to the lawsuit, as well as the appropriateness, speed and efficiency of the judgment, and effectiveness of the judgment. Specifically, the issue of which interest among these various interests needs to be protected shall be determined reasonably based on the objective criteria for the suspension of the law and the substantial relationship between the parties and the case in dispute and suspension of the law (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da175815, May 29, 20085, 20085, May 297, 2008).

C. Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 1, 3, 9, 10-1 and 2, the plaintiff and the defendant are overseas Koreans living in east-do, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on November 6, 2009 pursuant to the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on October 7, 2009. The monetary tea certificate (A) signed by the defendant against the plaintiff on February 7, 2007, the court having jurisdiction over the plaintiff's domicile was stipulated as the jurisdiction over the dispute over the loans of 40 million UN with respect to the plaintiff's 40 million loan loan and the provisional seizure executed by the defendant is stipulated as the provisional seizure execution against the plaintiff, and the defendant owned the above land by 1054m20,054m2, 29, 27527m28, 207.

(2) Examining the jurisdiction provisions of domestic law in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Private International Act, first of all, the competent court of the defendant's general forum (Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Act), the agreement between the parties, and the principle of reference obligations under Article 484 of the Civil Code of Japan where the plaintiff's domicile is the competent court of the plaintiff's domicile (it appears that the plaintiff's report of his domicile in the Republic of Korea is aimed at establishing a connection factor with the Republic of Korea for the lawsuit of this case rather than on the basis of his activity in the Republic of

In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Korean court to conceal the loan of the plaintiff 40 million UN, even though it is related to the loan of the plaintiff 40 million UN, the defendant can secure the propriety, prompt and efficient judgment, and the fairness, convenience, and predictability of the parties to the lawsuit in Japan where it is easy to collect evidence.

(3) Meanwhile, Article 11 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a lawsuit concerning a property right against a person who has no address in the Republic of Korea may be brought to the court located in the location of the defendant's property which can be seized." In this case, the lawsuit brought by the plaintiff is a lawsuit concerning the property right to seek the repayment of a loan, and the location of the real estate owned by the defendant who executed a provisional seizure with the above loan claim as the preserved right is the Republic of Korea, but it is reasonable to view that there is no substantial relationship with the Republic

In order to secure effectiveness of the judgment, it is possible to argue that the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, which is the location of the defendant's real property, should be recognized. However, the plaintiff can conduct compulsory execution upon being sentenced to a judgment of execution by the Gwangju District Court, which has jurisdiction over the location of the above real property, pursuant to Article 26 of the Civil Execution Act after receiving a performance judgment from the Japanese Court.

In addition, the district court having jurisdiction over the place where a provisional attachment exists (Article 278 of the Civil Execution Act), but the provisional attachment jurisdiction of the location of the object of provisional attachment and the jurisdiction of the principal on the merits are quasi-classified, and the provisional attachment jurisdiction does not create jurisdiction over the principal on the merits. Thus, the issuance and execution of the provisional attachment order on the real estate of the plaintiff does not create jurisdiction over the principal

(4) Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since international jurisdiction is not acknowledged in the Republic of Korea as the forum of law.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and the defendant's defense is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Chang-ju (Presiding Judge)