[1] Whether the agreement on jurisdiction affects a specific successor (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The case reversing the order of the court below, which held that the agreement does not extend to a specific successor to the claim for the loan, on the ground of a misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the agreement

[1] In principle, the agreement of jurisdiction is an act under the Civil Procedure Act, and it does not extend to a third party except the parties to the agreement and their general successors, but considering the substantive law that the jurisdiction is changed by the agreement of the parties to the jurisdiction, it can be changed as a condition of exercise of the right, and therefore, if the parties can freely determine the contents of the right relationship, such as a nominative claim, if the parties can freely determine the contents of the right relationship, it shall be deemed that the specific successor to the right relationship has succeeded to such changed relation of right. Therefore, the agreement of jurisdiction shall also extend

[2] The case reversing the order of the court below that the agreement does not extend to a specific successor to the claim for the loan, on the ground of a misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the agreement

[1] Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea Asset Management Corporation (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Other than 1 et al.

Seoul High Court Order 2005Ra363 dated August 11, 2005

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined.

In principle, the agreement of jurisdiction is an act under the Civil Procedure Act, and it does not extend to a third party except the parties to the agreement and their general successors. However, if the agreement of the parties on jurisdiction is practically and legally established, it is possible to change the substantive understanding, which is indivisible in the relationship of rights, as the condition of exercise of rights, and therefore, if the parties can freely determine the contents of the relationship of rights, such as nominative claim, the specific successor in the relationship of rights shall be deemed to succeed to the changed relationship of rights, so the agreement of jurisdiction shall also affect a specific successor.

According to the records and facts acknowledged by the court below, the Korean Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Korean Bank") conducted the loan of this case to the other party 1 from December 29, 1990 to March 21, 1997, and both parties approved the application of the basic terms and conditions for credit transactions. Article 21 of the basic terms and conditions for credit transactions of the Bank provides that "if a lawsuit is required between the bank and the debtor or guarantor, or with the surety, the district court shall have jurisdiction over the location of the business place of the bank." Since the business place of the Korean Bank, which takes charge of the loan of this case, was a subsidiary located in Nowon-si, Busan, the Korean Bank transferred the bonds of this case to the other party of the Korean Bank to the re-appellant on September 30, 1998, and notified the fact that it transferred the bonds of this case to the other party of this case, the Korean Bank and the other party to the loan of this case were freely authorized to apply the terms and conditions of the loan of this case to the designated claim of this case.

Therefore, the court below held that the court below did not have jurisdiction over the lawsuit of this case since the validity of the above jurisdiction agreement between the national bank and the non-party 1 does not extend to the re-appellants who are merely the assignee of the loan claim of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the jurisdiction agreement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground for reappeal

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of reappeal, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)