(a) the requirements for an action claiming a judgment of execution on a foreign judgment;

B. The nature of the so-called mutual guarantee under Article 203 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act

(a) the requirements for an action claiming a judgment of execution on a foreign judgment;

B. The nature of the so-called mutual guarantee under Article 203 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act

Articles 477 and 203 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon High Court Decision 70Na1561 decided May 12, 1971

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are determined.

The so-called mutual guarantee under Item 4 of Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where the foreign country concerned has the same effect as the provisions of Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act without examining the propriety of the judgment of the Republic of Korea in accordance with a treaty or its domestic law, or where the judgment of the Republic of Korea is recognized under the very important condition. The original judgment is based on the above principle and the United States does not approve the judgment of the foreign court, and there is no guarantee therefor, and the Republic of Korea and the United States have no mutual guarantee of the validity of the judgment. The judgment of divorce rendered on June 10, 1968 by the court of the Korean four Sea Zone 8 of the United States of four Sea-based case in the United States of America has no mutual guarantee of the case of divorce claim under Article 203 Item 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed under Article 477 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be dismissed, and its conclusion is justified as long as the plaintiff's preliminary claim for the appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of litigation costs for the appeal.

Supreme Court Judge Hong Nam-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)