1. Regarding international jurisdiction

Article 2(1) of the Private International Act provides that "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 judging the existence or absence of substantial relation." In addition, Article 2(2) provides that "the court shall consider the provisions of the domestic law in determining the existence or absence of international jurisdiction, and shall take full account of the special nature of international jurisdiction in light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1)." Thus, international jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring fair, reasonable, reasonable, prompt, and economy between the parties, as well as personal interests, such as equity, convenience, and predictability of the parties to the lawsuit, and the appropriateness, prompt, efficient, and effectiveness of the judgment, as well as the interests of the court or the state, such as the appropriateness, effectiveness, etc. of the judgment. Whether there is a need to protect any of these diverse interests shall be determined reasonably based on the objective relationship between the suspension of law and the parties and the case in dispute (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5278, Dec.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the contract of this case was entered into between the plaintiff 2 and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 1,00 tons (the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 1,113,90 tons were delivered) for the purpose of selling 1,00 to the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the defendant 3, the non-party 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 3, the defendant.

According to these facts, the lawsuit of this case is a dispute related to the settlement of the difference between the temporary price and the final price determined according to the sales contract, i.e., payment of the purchase price, and it is decided to deliver the freezing fish shipped from Russia to Japan by the company of the Republic of Korea in China, to maintain a certain quantity of Cheong, and finally settle the difference between the temporary price and the final price according to the result of the inspection in China. Thus, the court, which is most substantially related to the disputed case, was the place of delivery of Cheong language of this case, was the Chinese court, which was the place of the final inspection. However, as seen earlier, the lawsuit of this case was dismissed by the defendant against the plaintiff, and there is no evidence which can directly verify the ratio of sexual intercourse included in Cheong language to the contract of this case, and if the defendant, who received the right of this case, concluded the contract of this case and the contract of this case, could have been delivered to the court of the Republic of Korea after the lapse of five years from the conclusion of the contract of this case and the international jurisdiction of this case.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to international jurisdiction. The ground of appeal on this part is without merit

2. As to whether the final samples are inspected

According to the records, after compiling the evidence presented in its judgment and recognizing facts as stated in its judgment, the court below's decision that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not participate in the Russian company's participation and that the defendant impliedly accepted the defendant's request for the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the court below's rejection of the defendant's counterclaim for the return of unjust enrichment is just, and there is no violation of the legal principles as to contract interpretation, violation of the rules of evidence, or incomplete deliberation. This part of the ground of appeal is not acceptable.

3. 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 Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)