The meaning of “mutual guarantee” under Article 203 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act

The term “mutual guarantee” stipulated in Article 203 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act means that the foreign country concerned has the same effect as the provisions of Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act without examining whether the decision of the Republic of Korea has been made by a treaty or by its domestic law, or where it can be expected that the decision of the Republic of Korea will be granted even if there is no case of approval of the decision of the Korean court in the foreign country concerned, in detail, even if there is no case of approval of the decision of the Korean court.

Article 203 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da1393 delivered on October 22, 1971 (Article 203(1)904 of the Civil Procedure Act, Ka9855, 19 third-public47)

Plaintiff

Prosecutor

Seoul Civil History District Court (83 Gohap1249)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment rendered by the same court on May 5, 1978 with respect to the case of recognition claim No. 31, 52 years in Japan and Japan between the above parties can be subject to compulsory execution.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. As a notarized document, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 (Judgment and translation) and Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2 (Judgment confirmation and translation), where each authenticity is presumed, the plaintiff having Japan was born as a person other than a marriage between the deceased and the Japanese woman Nos. 1, and the deceased, whose permanent domicile is located in the Sincheon-dong, Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-gu, Dong-do, (number omitted) on August 22, 1953. The above deceased was born on October 4 of the same year as the plaintiff was born during marriage between the above deceased and the non-party No. 3, whose permanent domicile was registered in the above deceased's family register on September 20, 197, and the above deceased was cancelled from the above family register upon request of the above deceased, and the court of final judgment No. 1,500,0000,000 for the defendant No. 1,57,000.

The plaintiff asserts that Japan's final judgment is subject to all the conditions stipulated in Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that Japan's final judgment is subject to the above Japanese judgment, and that it cannot be recognized as valid because it fails to satisfy the conditions of "the date of guarantee of the family" stipulated in Article 203 subparagraph 4 of the same Act. Thus, "the date of guarantee of the family" is examined as to the conditions of Article 203 subparagraph 4 of the same Act, and "the date of guarantee of the family" is the same as that of Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act, or without examining the legitimacy of the Korean judgment under a treaty or its domestic law, or even if there are no cases that the Republic of Korea's judgment is approved under the same conditions, it is sufficient to recognize that the foreign court's domestic judgment is subject to the same principle of reciprocity as that of the Korean Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it should not be subject to the provisions of Article 200, Article 514 and Article 518 of the same Civil Procedure Act.

On the other hand, since the above final judgment is a Japanese judgment that shares the same legal system with our country, it is presumed that the conditions of subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 203 of the same Act are met, and no special circumstance exists to reverse it.

Therefore, the final and conclusive judgment of Japan of this case is permitted in Korea as it satisfies all the conditions under Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act, and compulsory execution is permitted in Korea. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the execution judgment of this case shall be justified and accepted, and the original judgment is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as well as the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost it.

Judges Kim Hun-Un (Presiding Judge)