1. The California higher court of the United States of America between the plaintiff and the defendant - the United States of California - the Central District.

1. Basic facts are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff filed a claim for divorce and division of property against the State of California (U.S.) with the Defendant on September 7, 1988 while maintaining marital relations with the Defendant; (b) the California higher court of California (U.S.) filed a claim for divorce and division of property at the Central District (hereinafter “instant court”); (c) on September 29, 201, the said court rendered a judgment on the ownership of the original Defendant’s common property, individual property, etc. on September 29, 201; (d) the content of paragraph (6) in the said judgment is as indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant judgment”); and (e) the fact that the “real estate located in Shicheon-si in Korea” in the said judgment is “12/192 of the Defendant’s share of the D. D. 26,325 square meters does not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the entire purport of pleadings

2. Determination

A. In order for a judgment of a foreign court to be approved and executed in Korea, the requirements stipulated in Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Act, i.e., a final judgment of a foreign court, which is ① to recognize the international jurisdiction of such foreign court in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Republic of Korea or the principle of international jurisdiction under the treaties of the Republic of Korea (Article 1); ② the defendant who has lost is served with a complaint or a document corresponding thereto, and a notice of date or order, or has responded to the lawsuit even if the defendant has not been served for time necessary for defense in a lawful method (Article 2); ③ The recognition of its validity does not violate good morals or other social order of the Republic of Korea (Article 3);

B. The instant judgment satisfies the requirements set forth in Article 217 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the international jurisdiction of the instant court is recognized in light of the principle of international jurisdiction under the statutes or treaties of the Republic of Korea.

In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 13, the plaintiff filed a claim for divorce with the court of this case on February 4, 2010, and the defendant on February 20, 2010.