Whether mutual guarantee exists as to the validity of foreign judgments between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea (affirmative)

Article 98 of the Lease Law (1971) and Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea is replaced by the same purport as Article 203, Article 476, and Article 477 of the Civil Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea, and the conditions for enforcement of the judgment in the United States of America are the same as that in the Republic of Korea, the validity of the foreign judgment between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea is mutually guaranteed.

Articles 203, 476, 477 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 98 of the Loan Management Act

Htilon V Gyot 159 US 113 (1895)

Plaintiff

Defendant

1. The judgment of nullity of marriage rendered on April 28, 1983 between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the case of claim for nullity of marriage No. 20371 of the Family Court's Will of the United States of America, No. 20371, which was enforced on April 28, 1983 may be executed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The petitioner of the Republic of Korea residing in a foreign country seeks a judgment of execution like the entry of the order against the respondent who is a woman of the Republic of Korea residing in a foreign country. This is about the so-called conflict of interest between the people of the Republic of Korea in a foreign country. Thus, the first issue is whether the court of the Republic of Korea has jurisdiction over this case, and there is no legal provision directly stipulating the case in which the court of the Republic of Korea has jurisdiction over this case, and there is no international treaty or generally accepted international law. However, the legal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent seeking the judgment of execution of this case is both the Republic of Korea and the legal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, except for the case where the petitioner and the respondent have been sentenced to a judgment of nullity of marriage by the court of the United States of America, and it is clear that the applicant's address is currently in Korea in light of the head of this case, and therefore, it is reasonable to exercise jurisdiction in the court of the Republic of Korea by exercising jurisdiction over the present case.

2. In light of the methods and purport of each document, as it is recognized as being prepared by Korean public officials and public offices of the United States, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Judgment) and Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2 (each certified family register copy) presumed as genuine official document, the defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of nullity of marriage with the plaintiff who filed a report with the head of Seoul metropolitan Office of Korea on August 19, 1980 on April 28, 1983 that the above marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was invalidated, but it became final and conclusive at that time, and there is no other evidence to reverse the facts stated in both the above marriage registers as valid.

3. Examining whether the judgment of this case rendered by the U.S. court meets the conditions that can be approved in Korea, the issue of foreign judgment between the U.S. court and the Republic of Korea is identical to the purpose of Articles 203, 476, and 477 of the Korean Civil Procedure Act, and the issue of validity of foreign judgment between the U.S. court and the Republic of Korea is mutual guarantee. In addition, there is no other fact that the jurisdiction of the U.S. court under laws or treaties has been denied, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above judgment does not violate good morals and other social order of Korea and that the above judgment did not summon the Plaintiff in the above marriage judgment of this case in the U.S. court.

According to the above facts, the above judgment of the United States of America is effective upon meeting all the conditions set forth in Article 203 of the Korean Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Full-time (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-soo