[1] Criteria for determining whether a “mutual guarantee” under Article 217 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act is “mutual guarantee”

[2] The case holding that there is a mutual guarantee between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea in recognition of the validity of the judgment of the other country

[3] The case holding that recognizing the validity of the above foreign judgment is not contrary to the good morals and other social order of the Republic of Korea, solely on the ground that the failure of marriage, which is the cause of divorce in the foreign court's final judgment, is not the cause of divorce stipulated in the Civil Code of the Republic of Korea, and the method of division of property in the above foreign judgment is different from Korea, and the spouse's support payment ordered in the above foreign judgment

[1] Article 217 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 217 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 217 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da74213 decided Oct. 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1937)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2007Na21518 Decided February 12, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. Article 217 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act requires "mutual guarantee" as an approval requirement for a foreign judgment in order to prevent disadvantages that Korea may sustain and to promote equity in international relations. However, considering that the recognition requirements for a foreign judgment in the country of judgment are too narrow to the extent of recognition of the foreign judgment because the recognition requirements are too narrow to the present situation where international exchanges are frequent and rather brings about unreasonable result to refuse approval of the Korean judgment in a foreign country, it is reasonable to deem that the same approval requirements for a foreign judgment do not lose balance between Korea and foreign country, and the requirements prescribed in a foreign country are not excessive than those in Korea, and there are almost little differences in important points, and it is sufficient to acknowledge mutual guarantee requirements for a foreign judgment compared with the approval requirements under Article 217 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is sufficient to conclude a treaty with a party in a foreign country, and it is sufficient to expect that the foreign judgment should be approved in a situation where a treaty is not actually established in the country in question.

Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the Canadian Onnuri District Court has the judicial authority to deal with the pertinent matters by the court which issued a foreign judgment, and the foreign judgment finalized does not go against the public order of Canada Naio and approved it in cases where it is not a judgment by deceiving a foreign court or in violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the requirements for approval of the foreign judgment of Canada do not significantly lose balance, and it can be said that there is no substantial difference between the requirements for recognition of the foreign judgment of Canada and it is nothing more than those prescribed by the Civil Procedure Act, and it can be expected that the Canadian Onnuri District Court will approve the same kind of judgment of Korea.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that there exists a mutual guarantee between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 217 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

B. As long as the requirements for mutual guarantee between Korea and Canada are deemed to have been met, the lower court did not separately determine the Defendant’s assertion that there was no mutual guarantee regarding the part of the order of support among the judgment in this case, and did not err by misapprehending the judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A. The circumstance that the failure of marriage, which is the ground for divorce in the judgment of this case, is not a ground for divorce as prescribed by the Civil Act of Korea, and the method of division of property in the judgment of this case is somewhat different from that in Korea. The mere fact that the spouse support fee ordering payment in the judgment of this case is not recognized in Korea is not recognized in Korea is in violation of the good morals and other social order of the Republic of Korea.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 217 subparag. 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, contrary to the

B. Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the instant judgment cannot be deemed to have violated the good customs and other social order of Korea in its establishment procedure, on the grounds that the Defendant was absent from office on the ground that the instant lawsuit had been pending for more than four years, but the Defendant did not faithfully prepare for the lawsuit, and that the Defendant raised an objection thereto, but the court voluntarily renounced the subsequent procedure on the ground that the amount ordered to provide security was excessive.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 217 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. On the third ground for appeal

Without being alleged in the lower court, a new argument in the final appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for final appeal against the lower judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da24325, Sept. 25, 1992; 2001Da63575, Jan. 25, 2002).

According to the records, the defendant's assertion that the execution of the part corresponding to the amount already paid by his child's child support, spouse's support allowance, etc. should not be allowed until the court below's decision was made. Thus, this part of the allegation is not a

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)