Gangwon-si Plast Plast Co., Ltd. and 3 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Lee Jae-mo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea-U.S. Unemployment Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorney Lee Han-sub, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 2016Kahap102329 Decided November 9, 2017

March 22, 2018

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant will pay to the plaintiff Gangwon-si Plast Pream Co., Ltd. the amount of KRW 9,400,000, the amount of KRW 2,700,000, the amount of KRW 1,900,000 to the plaintiff Jinjin-si Electronic Co., Ltd., the amount of KRW 1,90,000, and the amount of KRW 1,000,000 to the plaintiff Seojin-jin Electronic Co., Ltd., and the amount of KRW 5.6% per annum from February 1, 2016 to the date of this judgment final and conclusive, and the amount of KRW 1.2% per annum from the following to the date of full payment.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows, except for the case where the “Determination....” of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Parts to be dried;

"C. Determination"

1) The Defendant is a Korean legal entity, and the Defendant’s principal office is located in Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu.

2) However, this case does not require the Plaintiffs to claim the price of the goods on the grounds of the transaction relationship with the Defendant, but it is held jointly and severally liable pursuant to the Chinese Construction Act for the reasons that the Plaintiffs concluded the instant goods supply contract with the Nonparty Company and supplied the goods but did not receive the price of the goods. Therefore, the primary dispute in this case is the existence and amount of the non-party company’s obligation to pay the price of the goods unpaid to the Plaintiffs. The issue of whether the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with the non-party company under the Chinese Construction Act for the non-party company’s goods payment obligation is a secondary issue. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize it in full view of the disputes related to the price of the goods unpaid under the instant goods supply contract between the Plaintiffs and the non-party company, and the Plaintiffs and the non-party company, which are the parties to the contract, based on health expenses

① The Plaintiffs and the non-party companies, both of which are the parties to the instant goods supply contract, have their headquarters in China, and do not have any branch or business office in the Republic of Korea.

② The instant goods supply contract was concluded in China, and the Plaintiffs supplied goods to the non-party company in China, and the non-party company also paid the price for the goods to the Plaintiffs through a bank in China. The contract was concluded and implemented in China.

③ In Korean language, various notices, receipts, deposit slips, bonds, and debt certificates related to the instant contract, including the instant goods supply contract.

④ In full view of the various materials indicated in the record, it is difficult to recognize a special adjudication prescribed in Articles 7 through 24 of the Civil Procedure Act in the Republic of Korea as to disputes over the price of goods under the instant goods supply contract between the Plaintiffs and the non-party company.

⑤ Rather, in relation to the above case, diverse arguments and defenses of the non-party company, such as defects in the supplied goods, reduction of the price resulting therefrom, claims for damages, etc., may be raised. Considering that most important means of evidence necessary for the trial are in China, it accords with the ideology of international jurisdiction allocation in terms of the appropriateness, speediness, and efficiency of the trial.

3) The plaintiffs, without filing a lawsuit against the non-party company, who is the party to the goods supply contract of this case, immediately asserted that the defendant is the Republic of Korea company and its principal office is located in Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu, and thus, the court of the Republic of Korea has international jurisdiction in accordance with the territorial jurisdiction provisions of the Civil Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea. However, even if the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the defendant only without excluding the non-party company, the first issue in this case is the existence and amount of the non-party company's obligation to pay the price for the goods to the non-party company under the goods supply contract of this case, and both the plaintiffs and the non-party company, who are the parties concerned, are China

4) The Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that international jurisdiction shall be recognized in the Republic of Korea court, even if they filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in China with the Chinese court, and even if they received a favorable judgment from the Chinese court, since the judgment might not obtain approval for the execution of the Defendant’s property in the Republic of Korea. However, the Plaintiffs did not have filed a lawsuit with the Chinese court against the Defendant and the non-party company. However, the Plaintiffs’ concerns that the recognition of international jurisdiction in the Korean court regarding the instant case may not be deemed to be necessary for the remedy of the Plaintiff’s rights, or consistent with the ideology of ensuring the appropriateness and speed of the trial between the Plaintiffs and the non-party companies, which have no substantial relations with the Republic of Korea, may infringe upon the predictability of the parties’ jurisdiction solely on the grounds that the non-party company’s shareholder is the Republic of Korea company and its principal office exists in the Republic of Korea.

5) Therefore, it cannot be recognized that the court of the Republic of Korea has international jurisdiction over the instant lawsuit. The Defendant’s main defense is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the appeal of the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Yoon Jin-Jung (Presiding Judge)