A. Criteria for determining whether to recognize domestic jurisdiction over a conflict of laws case

(b) The case holding that in a lawsuit claiming damages on the grounds that foreign employees working at the Seoul Office of a foreign corporation established under the laws of the United States of America and the laws of the Republic of Korea were dismissed, there is a jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea as provided in Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act;

C. Whether proof of the content of the foreign law applicable to the conflict of interest cases is sufficient for free proof (affirmative)

A. The issue of whether to recognize domestic jurisdiction over a conflict of international jurisdiction shall be determined by cooking in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring the fairness of parties and the propriety and prompt and prompt progress of trials, unless the principles of treaties or generally accepted international law have yet to be established regarding international jurisdiction and there is no written law in Korea as to this issue. In this case, since the provisions on territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea were also enacted in accordance with the above basic ideology, it is reasonable to determine whether to have jurisdiction over a conflict of international cases in Korea as to a lawsuit against the conflict of international jurisdiction.

B. The case holding that the jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea is vested in a lawsuit claiming damages on the ground that foreign employees working at the Seoul Office of a foreign corporation established under the laws of the United States of America and the laws of the Republic of Korea have been dismissed, since the trial under Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act is recognized.

C. The evidence method and procedure to prove the content of the foreign law that applied to the conflict of interest cases is not any limit in the Korean Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it is sufficient to prove it freely.

(a)Article 1(c) of the Conflict of Laws, Article 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 9 of the Conflict of Laws, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 71Da248 delivered on April 20, 1972 (No. 201Da1728 delivered on October 25, 198) (Gong1476 delivered on October 25, 198)

Plaintiff 1 and one other Plaintiffs, Attorneys Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Macco AWD Law Firm Han-dong Law Firm, Attorneys Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant in charge of Han-dong Law Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na17056 delivered on October 10, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

The issue of whether to recognize domestic jurisdiction over the conflict of laws is reasonable by cooking in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring the fairness, propriety and promptness of trials, as long as treaties or generally accepted principles of international law have not yet been established regarding international jurisdiction, and there are no written laws and regulations in the Republic of Korea concerning this issue. In this case, since the provisions on territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea were also enacted in accordance with the above basic ideology, it is reasonable to determine whether to have jurisdiction over the conflict of laws in the Republic of Korea as well as the litigation over the conflict of laws in the Republic of Korea.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant company's office, a foreign corporation established under the laws of the United States of America, is located in Seoul and the plaintiffs who were foreigners working here claim damages on the ground that they were unfair from the defendant company, and therefore the lawsuit of this case is recognized as a trial under Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out. The argument is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

Since there is no limitation on the Korean Civil Procedure Act on the method and procedure to prove the contents of the quasi-foreign law applicable to the conflict of laws, it is sufficient to prove it freely.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below recognized the content of the law of subordinate country of the United States of America, which is the governing law of the lawsuit of this case, as stated in Gap evidence 8-2 (the case mark and content of the appellate court of subordinate country), as well as the evidence No. 5 (written opinion) of the non-party prepared by the non-party who is qualified as the attorney-at-law of subordinate country of the United States of America, as well as the content of the law of subordinate country of this case, as

With respect to the third point:

According to the written application for amendment of claims and supplementation of causes for claims stated on March 22, 1990 at the 10th date for pleading of the first instance trial, the damages for which the plaintiffs sought compensation in this case was lost of wages and housing allowances from November 23, 1988 to November 22, 1989. Accordingly, according to the legal brief dated May 23, 1990 stated by the defendant at the 12th date for pleading of the first instance trial, it is obvious that the defendant made an assertion that he paid the plaintiffs with additional salary for one month during the above period, and the defendant did not dismiss the court below, based on each of the above statements of subparagraph 3-1, 2 (Calculation Statement of Benefit), the defendant company did not make a decision as to the total amount of additional salary for one month during the above period, and did not have any influence on the plaintiff 1's 2,774.70, and 281.298.198.298.198.

The argument that points this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)