Jurisdiction over a case where a lawsuit for divorce has been filed with the Korean court on the ground that he abandons his wife with the nationality of the Republic of Korea;

In a case where a wife files a lawsuit for divorce with a Korean court on the ground that he abandons a wife with a Japanese nationality, if the wife denies the jurisdiction of the Korean court, it would refuse to protect the wife, which would result in unfair results contrary to the principles of justice and equity in the private international law life relationship. In such a case, the wife's home country and the country of domicile have the jurisdiction in the Korean court, which is the country of domicile.

Article 18 of the Conflict of Laws

Claimant

appellees

The appellant and the appellee shall be divorced.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

In full view of the facts stated in Gap's evidence No. 1 (No. 1) presumed to have been established as a public document, and the whole purport of the trial, the claimant with the nationality of the Republic of Korea and the respondent with the nationality of Japan can be acknowledged as a legal couple pursuant to Article 15 (1) of the Conflict of Laws and Article 739 (1) of the Civil Code of Japan by reporting marriage in Japan on December 10, 1984.

This case is a case where a claimant with the nationality of the Republic of Korea claims a divorce trial against the respondent who has the nationality of Japan in the Republic of Korea, and is included in the so-called conflict of law legal relations. As to the jurisdiction of this case, first, if the respondent who has the nationality of Japan abandons the claimant and is missing, and the court of Korea does not recognize the jurisdiction of this case as to the jurisdiction of this case, it would refuse to protect the claimant, which would result in unfair results contrary to the justice and the fairness principle in the private international law life. As such, this case is the home country of the claimant and has jurisdiction in the court of Korea, which is the domicile country, and according to Articles 25 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is clear that the member is the competent court.

Next, according to Article 18 of the Conflict of Laws applicable to this case, a divorce shall be governed by the law of nationality of the father at the time when the cause of the divorce occurred, and in this case, the respondent is a foreigner with a Japanese registry as seen above, so the governing law applicable to this case shall be the law of divorce of Japan.

As to the facts of the cause of the instant claim, in full view of the descriptions of No. 1 (No. 1) and No. 2 (resident registration record card) presumed to have been filed, and the whole purport of the testimony and deliberation of No. 3 (personal guarantee) which are acknowledged to have been filed by the whole purport of the deliberation, the claimant shall not be deemed to have violated the original promise, and shall not be deemed to have violated the fact that the claimant, while living together on September 1, 1984, after having reported the marriage in Japan while the respondent was living together, shall return to the respondent to enter Japan with the introduction of No. 3 (personal guarantee) and the testimony and deliberation of No. 3 (personal guarantee) which were recognized to have been filed by the former purport of the deliberation.

Thus, the above facts constitute grounds for judicial divorce under Article 770 subparagraph 2 of the Japanese Civil Code, and thus, the petitioner's appeal of this case is justified, and the costs of trial shall be judged as per Disposition at the expense of the losing respondent.

Judges Egradro (Presiding Judge)