[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap corporation, its head office in the U.S. P. P. S. P. P., Eul corporation, its domestic company, purchased and sold the electric pressure foundation manufactured and exported in the form of OEM to Byung corporation, its head office in the State of New York, which had its head office in the State of New York, in the U.S., and agreed to pay damages to the consumers who suffered damages due to the defect in the above material foundation, and then filed a lawsuit against Eul corporation and its branch court in the U.S., which ordered the payment of indemnity, and the court ordered the payment of indemnity, the court held that there is no international jurisdiction in the above court since

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that there was no explicit or implied jurisdiction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the jurisdiction agreement, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 2(1) of the Private International Act provides, “Where a party or a disputed case 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.” Paragraph (2) provides, “The court shall consider the jurisdiction of the international jurisdiction in light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1), and shall take full account of the special nature of the international jurisdiction in light of the purport of the provision of the same paragraph.” The court shall determine the international jurisdiction in accordance with the basic ideology of promoting fairness, propriety, speed and economy between the parties to the lawsuit, as well as personal interests, such as fairness, convenience, and predictability of the trial, and effectiveness of the judgment, and the court and the State’s interests, such as the appropriateness, speed and efficiency of the lawsuit, shall also be taken into account in the case of an individual case, whether there is a need to protect any interest among these diverse interests, should be reasonably taken into account the objective relevance between the manufacturer and the foreign supplier’s claim for compensation to the extent of loss occurred.

According to the records, the plaintiff was 1 to change the name of the defendant 6 U.S. Industrial Complex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "S. 2") to the 0th New York Industrial Complex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "New York Co., Ltd.")'s 200 U.S. Industrial Complex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "New York Co., Ltd.")'s 200 U.S. Industrial Complex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "New York Co., Ltd.")'s 6th of June 199 to the 0th of June 1, 199 that the plaintiff was 6 U.S. Industrial Complex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "New York Co., Ltd.")'s 2's 4th of June 1, 2009 to the New York Industrial Complex Co., Ltd.'s 1's 50th of September 27, 199

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, insofar as Red Co., Ltd had no address, place of business, sales agency, etc. in the United States, or had engaged in business activities, such as product advertisement or purchase consultation, with respect to the pressure of the instant case to the U.S. consumers, it is difficult to view that there is a substantial relationship between the Defendant and New York State, to the extent that the Defendant could reasonably have anticipated that the Defendant would be subject to a suit for the claim for reimbursement of the amount of the pressure of the instant case, on the sole basis of the fact that it was manufactured and exported to A.C. located in the New York State of the United States, on two occasions, the pressure of the instant case had been manufactured and exported through a trademark attachment method.

Although there is no inappropriate point in the reasoning of the court below, the conclusion that the New York court of this case did not have international jurisdiction is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the standard of judgment of international jurisdiction, or in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The argument in this part of the grounds of appeal is, in addition to the determination that the court below cannot recognize international jurisdiction in the New York court of this case on the ground that there is no substantial relationship between the manufacturer and the place where the damage occurred, it is difficult to recognize international jurisdiction in the New York court of this case.

However, as seen earlier, insofar as it is deemed difficult to recognize international jurisdiction in the New York court of this case, the legitimacy of such additional determination cannot affect the judgment. Ultimately, this part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted without further review.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, 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.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)