[2] In a case where Gap with the nationality of the Republic of Korea is at issue of international jurisdiction in a divorce lawsuit filed against Eul with the current nationality of the Republic of Korea, the case affirming the judgment below which held that Gap's claim is at issue of substantive relations with the Republic of Korea and thus, the international jurisdiction is recognized

1. 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.” Article 2(2) provides, “The court shall consider the jurisdiction of the domestic law, and shall take into account the special nature of the international jurisdiction in light of the purport of Article 2(1).” Therefore, international jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring fairness, convenience, and predictability between the parties, as well as personal interests such as the appropriateness, convenience, and predictability of the trial, and the effectiveness of the judgment, and the interests of the court and the State, such as the appropriateness, speediness, efficiency, and effectiveness 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’ substantial relation, and the suspension of law and the case in dispute, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da20154.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the plaintiff has the nationality of the Republic of Korea; the defendant moves to a parent of the Republic of Korea who has the nationality of the Republic of Korea and has the current Spanish nationality; the principal of the case has both the nationality of the Republic of Korea and Spain; the plaintiff and the defendant have married in the Republic of Korea on August 15, 2006; the plaintiff and the defendant continued to reside in the Republic of Korea due to the operation, pregnancy and childbirth of the principal of the case; the plaintiff went to Spain while living in the Republic of Korea on March 14, 2009; the plaintiff left the Republic of Korea with the principal of the case and started the marital life in the Spanish from that time; the plaintiff and the defendant were dissatisfied with Spain; the plaintiff and the defendant were living in the Republic of Korea and brought up the principal of the case back to the Republic of Korea on June 29, 2011.

In addition, based on the above facts, the court below determined that: (i) since the Spanish court is more convenient than the court of the Republic of Korea to deny jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea; (ii) the plaintiff and the principal of the case have the nationality of the Republic of Korea; (iii) the defendant could have predicted that a divorce lawsuit may be instituted in the Republic of Korea because the plaintiff was registered as a resident in the Republic of Korea with the principal of the case within the marriage period; (iv) since the plaintiff lives in the Republic of Korea from June 29, 201 to the date, the plaintiff's right to divorce exists; and (v) since the plaintiff's right to divorce exists in the Republic of Korea based on the proviso to Article 39 of the Private International Act, the court of the Republic of Korea has the jurisdiction over property of the Republic of Korea as a citizen of the Republic of Korea, and there is also a need for the court of the Republic of Korea to determine the law of the Republic of Korea as applicable law of the Republic of Korea to protect the plaintiff's property under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to international jurisdiction, which affected the

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)