1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 9,071,204 as well as to the plaintiff from December 16, 2009 to October 2015.

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed with a court of the Republic of Korea with no international jurisdiction, since the instant case has no substantial connection with the Republic of Korea.

B. Article 2(1) of the relevant legal principles of private international law provides that “where a party or a case in dispute is substantially related to the Republic of Korea, the court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall comply with reasonable principles consistent with the ideology of allocation of international jurisdiction in determining the existence of substantial relation,” and furthermore, Article 2(2) provides that “the court shall determine the existence of the international jurisdiction, taking into account the provisions of the domestic law, and shall fully consider the special nature of the international jurisdiction in light of the purport of the provision of paragraph(1).” Thus, it shall determine the international jurisdiction by investigating the existence of substantial relation in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring fairness, propriety, speediness and economy between the parties, as well as personal interests such as equity, convenience and predictability, as well as the appropriateness, speediness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the judgment, etc. of the court or the state as well as the interests of the parties to the lawsuit. Whether there is a need to protect any of these diverse interests should be determined reasonably by taking into account the objective relationship between the suspension of law and the parties’ substantial relation

In addition, it cannot be denied that the existence of territorial jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act is still an important factor in determining whether the party or the disputed case is a substantial relationship with the Republic of Korea. Since international jurisdiction is not exclusive jurisdiction, it may exist concurrently rather than it, the courts of other countries are in terms of geographical, verbal, and communication convenience.