The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its reasoning, determined that there was no explicit or implied jurisdiction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

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. As to the second ground for appeal, 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 of substantive relations,” and Article 2(2) provides, “The court shall determine the existence of international jurisdiction, taking into account the provisions under the jurisdiction of domestic law, and shall consider the special nature of international jurisdiction in light of the purport

The court shall determine international jurisdiction in accordance with the basic ideology of promoting the equity between the parties, the propriety, speediness and economy of the trial. Specifically, not only personal interests such as equity, convenience and predictability of the parties to the lawsuit, but also the interests of the court and the State, such as the appropriateness, speediness, efficiency and effectiveness of the judgment, etc. of the court and the state. Whether to protect any of such diverse interests shall be determined reasonably by taking objective criteria for determining the existence of any of such diverse interests in individual cases as suspension of law and substantial relationship between the parties to the case and the disputed case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da7190871915 Decided May 29, 2008). In particular, there is international jurisdiction in the product liability lawsuit against a manufacturer who manufactures and sells goods.