The valid requirements in Korea of foreign divorce judgment

If a foreign divorce judgment is valid in Korea, the foreign court that rendered the judgment must have the jurisdiction in an international sense. It is interpreted that the foreign court that rendered the judgment has the jurisdiction to hold the international jurisdiction only in the country where the other party's domicile is located, except in cases where the other party's domicile is missing or where there is no possibility of unfairly infringing his/her interest by actively responding to it. Thus, the foreign judgment that ordered a divorce, even if the other party's domicile is in Korea and there is no

Article 203 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act

July 22, 1975, Decision 74Meu22 decided Jul. 22, 1975 (Article 18, Article 641, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Law No. 23 ② 520, 8587Ka1066)

Claimant

appellees

On November 24, 1983, the divorce reported to the head of Seoul Branch Office on November 24, 1983 is confirmed to be null and void.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

The same shall apply to the order.

Comprehensively taking account of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2 (each certified copy of family register), 12-1, 2 (Pledge), and 3 (Judgment), the appellant and the respondent reported marriage on July 2, 196 as a person of Korean nationality and became a legally married couple, and generated 1 South Korea from that person, and the respondent filed a divorce trial against the claimant, with the Court of California, California, Luxembourg, the California, and the defendant filed a divorce trial against the claimant, and on February 7, 1983, the claimant and the respondent were declared to be divorced by the above court, and on November 24, 1983, the respondent reported the divorce to the head of Seoul Shi-gu, Seoul District Court on November 24, 1983, and the divorce was recorded in the family register.

As the appellant's legal representative asserts that the above divorce declaration between the parties to this case in accordance with the above foreign court's judgment is null and void, the respondent's legal representative asserts that the above divorce declaration cannot be invalidated, it shall be examined whether the above divorce declaration remains void, and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act shall not deny the jurisdiction of a foreign court as law or treaty under Article 203 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, even in the case of a foreign divorce judgment, if the foreign court's judgment does not meet the requirements prescribed in the above provisions of the law, it shall be null and void in Korea. In this case, the existence of jurisdiction under the above provisions of the law shall be the issue of whether the foreign court has jurisdiction within the international meaning of the foreign court which rendered the judgment, and if the foreign court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit, the issue of whether the defendant's legal representative has jurisdiction over the foreign court's judgment is an indirect issue in approving the foreign court's domicile, but in light of the above principles of fairness and justice of the Supreme Court's judgment, there is no concern that the other party's international jurisdiction should be in Korea.

In light of the above facts, comprehensively taking account of the contents of No. 1-1 (Notice of Execution of Documents) and No. 2 (Service Certificate) without dispute as to the establishment of this case and the testimony of No. 1 as witness, the defendant of this case was the plaintiff of this case and the defendant of this case was the defendant of this case at the trial court of California, California, Luxembourg, California, and the defendant of this case at the time of the above divorce trial, but the defendant of the above trial had a domicile in California, but the defendant of this case was living in Korea and was issued a writ of summons of the above trial date on April 26, 1982 through the defendant's non-party No. 2, the defendant of this case was found to have been missing at the time of the time, or there was no other similar circumstance, or there was a fact that the defendant actively responded to the above lawsuit, so the defendant did not have the right to divorce between the defendant of this case and the defendant of this case at the appellate court of California, California, California, and thus, the defendant's domicile of this case did not exist.

If so, the request for a trial on the objection of the claimant shall be justified, and the trial costs shall be judged as per the order at the expense of the respondent.

Administrative patent judges' personal identification (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-ran