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 of the domestic law’s jurisdiction, and shall consider the special nature of international jurisdiction in light of the purport

In this regard, Article 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the provisions of jurisdiction of the domestic law" means the whole of the provisions of jurisdiction recognized in the entire domestic law, including the territorial jurisdiction provisions under the Civil Procedure Act.

However, our Civil Procedure Act declares the principle of defendant's domicile domicile by stipulating that "the lawsuit shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in the location of the defendant's general forum (Article 2)," and "the general forum of a person shall be determined by his/her address (main sentence of Article 3)." This is also consistent with the general principles of international law recognizing the jurisdiction of the defendant's domicile country in accordance with the principle since the Roman law provides that "the plaintiff shall file a lawsuit against the court in the location of the defendant

In this case, as the principal office of Defendant ELB, the plaintiff's primary defendant, is obvious in the record that the facts exist in the Republic of Korea, the "party" or the dispute under Article 2 (1) of the Private International Act is substantial in the Republic of Korea.