A. Whether the courts of our country have jurisdiction over the family cases between foreigners

(b) Whether the courts of the Republic of Korea have jurisdiction over a person who exercises parental authority over a child born between a foreign couple for whom a judgment of divorce or designation of a child born in a foreign country has been rendered or not, and the custodian has jurisdiction over

A. The issue of whether there is jurisdiction over a family case between foreigners in our country shall be determined by the concept of cooking and justice, taking into account the characteristics arising out of a lawsuit between foreigners, based on the provisions of the Family Litigation Act in our country, taking into account the characteristics arising out of the lawsuit between foreigners, by considering the appropriate and smooth operation of the lawsuit procedure and the litigation economy.

B. In cases where a claimant between a foreign couple for whom the judgment of divorce or designation of a child born in a foreign country has been rendered is claiming for adjudication on the change of parental authority against the other party and that of a child born between a foreign couple, the court of our country in principle requires that the other party has an address in our country. Unless otherwise, it is reasonable to interpret that the court of our country has no jurisdiction, except in exceptional cases where the other party is missing or a similar situation exists or the other party actively complies with it.

A.B. Article 1 of the Conflict of Laws Act (hereinafter “Law”)

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da41897 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2551)

[Judgment of the court below]

Other Party

Seoul High Court Order 92BB4 dated October 13, 1992

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The issue of whether a foreigner has jurisdiction over a family case shall be determined by the court of Korea based on the provisions of the Family Litigation Act in Korea, taking into account the characteristics arising from a lawsuit between foreigners, and considering the fair and smooth operation of the litigation procedure and the operation of the litigation economy, etc. In light of the above, Article 46 of the Family Litigation Act provides that the family non-litigation case of category E, including the disposition to raise children between the divorce division and its modification, designation of a person to exercise parental authority, and modification thereof, shall be under the jurisdiction of the family court in the general forum of the other party. Considering that Article 46 of the Family Litigation Act provides that the family non-litigation case of category E shall be under the jurisdiction of the family court in which the other party has his/her jurisdiction over a child born between foreigners for whom a judgment of divorce and designation of a child have been rendered in a foreign country, the Korean court shall have jurisdiction over the other party to exercise jurisdiction, and unless otherwise, it is reasonable to interpret that the other party has a domicile in Korea.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the other party is residing in the U.S. subcontractor and only the re-appellant is residing in Korea with the principal of the case. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the court of Korea did not have jurisdiction over this case is correct in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)