1. The Defendant’s KRW 112,630,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 27, 2016 to June 27, 2018.

1. From around 2008, the Plaintiff paid wages, etc. of daily employed workers on behalf of the Defendant or lent money to the Defendant.

On January 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) prepared and ordered a loan certificate to the Plaintiff; and (b) promised to repay the said amount by February 26, 2016, by borrowing KRW 112,630,000 from the Plaintiff for the debt during that period.

【The purport of the whole pleadings and records of evidence of subparagraphs A through 4 (including paper numbers)】

2. The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits is a Chinese national, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant are both Chinese nationals, and thus, they have no international jurisdiction in the Korean court.

On the other hand, Article 2 (1) of the Private International Act provides that "the court shall have the international jurisdiction in the case where the party or the disputed case has a substantial relation with the Republic of Korea. In this case, in judging the existence of a substantial relation, the court shall comply with reasonable principles consistent with the ideology of allocation of international jurisdiction," and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the court shall judge the existence of international jurisdiction, taking into account the provisions of the domestic law, and shall consider the special nature of international jurisdiction in light of

Therefore, international jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring equity between the parties, the propriety, speedout and economy of the trial. Specifically, not only personal interests such as equity, convenience and predictability of the parties to the lawsuit, but also the interests of the court or the state, such as the appropriateness, speedout, efficiency and effectiveness of the judgment, etc. of the court or the state. Whether to protect any of these diverse interests should be determined reasonably by taking objective criteria for determining whether there is a need to protect any of such diverse interests in individual cases as suspension of law and substantial relationship between the parties to the case and the disputed case

Supreme Court Decision 205.5.