The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 2(1) of the Private International Act provides, “Where a party or a disputed case is substantially related to the Republic of Korea, the court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall comply with reasonable principles, consistent with the ideology of allocation of international jurisdiction, in determining the existence of substantive relations,” and Article 2(2) of the same Act provides, “The court shall consider the provisions of the domestic law and determine the existence of international jurisdiction, but shall consider the special nature of the international jurisdiction

The court shall determine international jurisdiction in accordance with the basic ideology of promoting the equity between the parties, the propriety, speediness and economy of the trial. Specifically, not only personal interests such as equity, convenience and predictability of the parties to the lawsuit, but also the interests of the court and the State, such as the appropriateness, speediness, efficiency and effectiveness of the judgment, etc. of the court and the state. Whether to protect any of such diverse interests shall be determined reasonably by taking objective criteria for determining the existence of any of such diverse interests in individual cases as suspension of law and substantial relationship between the parties to the case and the disputed case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da71908, 71915 Decided May 29, 2008, etc.). citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment, determined that the Plaintiff’s performance of duties pursuant to the contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) is the U.S. colon, and the monetary amount, which is the means of payment of the construction cost, is US dollars, and the Defendant dispatched its employees to the construction site to supervise construction works under the contract, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant are located in the Republic of Korea with the Plaintiff’s principal office located, and