(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.06 2015나105115

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.06 2015나105115

집행판결

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as stated in Article 1.1 of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception that “service was received” as stated in Article 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the above case was closed on February 28, 2014,” and “each entry in subparagraphs A and 2” as stated in Article 1, 2, and 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the respective entry in subparagraphs A and 1, and the inquiry results with respect to the head of the Daejeon Prison of the court of first instance.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion meets the requirements for recognition of a foreign judgment under Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Act, compulsory execution based on the above judgment shall be allowed.

B. In light of the principle of international jurisdiction of the defendant, the jurisdiction of the Japanese court is not recognized.

In addition, the defendant was served without being served with the complaint of the Japanese judgment or without being served with the time required for defense.

Therefore, since the Japanese judgment did not meet the requirements for approval of foreign judgment under Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Act, compulsory execution based on the above judgment cannot be allowed.

3. Determination

A. According to Article 217(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a final judgment of a foreign court is recognized as the international jurisdiction under the laws and regulations of the Republic of Korea or the treaty of the Republic of Korea (subparagraph 1), and even if the losing defendant was served with a complaint or a document corresponding thereto, and a notice of date or an order, with a time required for defense in a lawful method (excluding the case of service by public notice or any similar service), he/she responded to the lawsuit even if he/she was not served (Paragraph 2), and in light of the contents of the final judgment and the litigation procedures, the approval of the final judgment does not violate good morals or other social order of the Republic of Korea (Paragraph 3

참조조문

-민사소송법 제217조

-민사소송법 제217조 제1항

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.07.14 2015가단2260

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.05.25 2015가단212666 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.24 2016가합565797

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.11 2020나12430

-수원지방법원 2015.04.09 2014가단533476