[외국판결에대한집행판결청구사건][고집1971민,212]
The effect of final judgment rendered by a foreign court without mutual guarantee of the validity of Korean civil and personnel judgment.
The judgment of a foreign court cannot be sought with respect to a final judgment rendered by a foreign court which has no mutual guarantee of the validity of a foreign court's judgment and no civil and personnel judgment in Korea, and there is no positive law of the conflict of laws and no positive law of the conflict of laws exists with respect to a divorce case, which is more unfavorable than that of the Korean Civil Act, which is the Korean court of a foreign country with respect to the defendant who is a Korean citizen, the law of the conflict of laws of the Republic of Korea, which is the law of the Republic of Korea.
Articles 203 and 477 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 18 of the Conflict of Laws Act
Supreme Court Decision 71Da1393 delivered on October 22, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 9855Da855 delivered on September 19, 197, Supreme Court Decision 193Da37 delivered on June 20, 199, Supreme Court Decision 203Da303 delivered on
Plaintiff (Attorney Yang Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
April 21, 1971
Daejeon District Court Decision 69Nu715 delivered on May 9, 1970
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Costs of appeal lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The judgment of divorce rendered on June 10, 1968 between the plaintiff and the defendant on the case of divorce claim No. 54.509 in the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the No. 8-U.S. court of the United States four-U.S. case between the plaintiff and the defendant, may be maintained and executed. The litigation costs
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's judgment and preliminary judgment, such as the above purport of the claim, are confirmed to be lawful.
All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in the first and second trials.
If Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a) and 4 (a transcript of family register) are different from the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 2 (a) and 2-2 (a copy of family register) without dispute in its establishment, the plaintiff is a Korean national on Sep. 17, 1958, married in Korea with the defendant who is a Korean national on Sep. 17, 1958, and was married in Korea on Sep. 13, 1960, and the plaintiff and the defendant resided in the Korean court in the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction district of the above State No. 8 on May 13, 1968, and continued to be separated from around September 1968. (b) The original defendant is not in the nature of marriage and is still in the state. (c) The defendant has abused the plaintiff physically and physically without any justifiable reason or without the plaintiff's permission, and the plaintiff has filed a divorce lawsuit on the ground that it was damaged by the harm of health, etc., and the judgment of the court is not recognized otherwise.
The plaintiff asserts that the judgment of the above foreign court is guaranteed not to deny the jurisdiction of the foreign court between Korea and U.S., and that the judgment was served not by public notice but by the court of origin as it does not violate good morals and other social order. Thus, according to the result of appraisal by the non-party appraiser in the judgment of the court of origin, the United States does not approve the judgment of the foreign court, and there is no guarantee of the validity of the judgment, so Korea and the United States do not require that the judgment should be made in accordance with the governing law determined by the law of the Republic of Korea as the effective condition of the final judgment of the foreign court in Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the foreign law of the Republic of Korea should be applied to the foreign court and the Korean citizen's conflict of law in Korea, and the law of the above foreign court's conflict of law should be applied to the case where the divorce occurred at the time of the husband's nationality at the time of the judgment of the court of origin, and there is no room to accept the above judgment of the defendant's Republic of Korea as the above judgment of Korea's conflict of law.
Therefore, without any need to decide on the remaining issues, the plaintiff's claim (including preliminary claim) of this case is recognized to be groundless, and thus, it shall be dismissed. The judgment with the same conclusion is just and the plaintiff's appeal is deemed to be groundless, and it shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition
Judges Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Judge)