1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

With respect to the instant case cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasons for this court are the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the entry or judgment as follows, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The following is added between the third and third parallels. 6 and 7 of the judgment of the first instance, and the 7th parallels include “A” and “B Nos. 51” and “B Nos. 7 and 8.”

Meanwhile, during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant filed with the Central District Court a declaration that “The dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded by the agreement on January 19, 2012, which appears to be followed, with the first instance court of J. 19, 2012, on the ground that: (a) the first instance court of the instant lawsuit filed a declaration that “the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated by the agreement on January 19, 2012; (b) the first instance court of the instant case, on the ground that the first instance court of the instant lawsuit, filed a claim with the Central District Court of the instant case for damages claim by the Defendant on the grounds that the first instance court of the 19, 2012 was not able to enforce the instant arbitral award; (c) but, on the ground that the first instance court of the instant case filed a claim with the Central District Court of the Republic of Korea for damages claim by the Defendant on April 1, 2017.”

The following judgments shall be added between the fifth and fifth trials of the first instance.

“The Defendant asserts that there is no jurisdiction over the enforcement of the instant arbitral award in the Republic of Korea court through reference documents submitted after the closing of argument in the trial room. As such, the New York Convention does not have any provision on jurisdiction or jurisdiction over the enforcement of the arbitral award. On the other hand, Article 2(1) of the Private International Act has international jurisdiction in cases where “the parties or the matters in dispute are substantially related to the Republic of Korea.”

In this case, the court shall conform to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction in judging the existence of substantial relations.