2016drid2556 Nullification of divorce

******* (E*********************, 19**.*.*.*.*.***.*, life)

Address of the United States

Busan place of service

Nationality of the United States

Prosecutor of Busan District Prosecutor

May 3, 2016

May 17, 2016

1. On March 12, 2014, the divorce entered by the head of the Busan Metropolitan City on the judgment of divorce at the court of the United States of America and on March 12, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Dong RiverA (******** 1***********) confirms that the divorce made ex officio by the head of the Gu of Busan Metropolitan City is null and void.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Network GangseoA (hereinafter “the Deceased”) married on February 20, 1987.

B. The Plaintiff filed a divorce suit against the Deceased (hereinafter “U.S. court”) and was sentenced by the U.S. court (hereinafter “the foreign judgment of this case”). The foreign judgment of this case was finalized on May 16, 2012.

C. After that, on November 27, 2013, the Deceased died. B, the mother of the Deceased, applied for a divorce record according to the foreign judgment of this case to the head of Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, on March 3, 2014, and the head of Busan Metropolitan City, on March 12, 2014, entered ex officio divorce in the family relations register of the Plaintiff and the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination: Provided, That this shall not apply

According to Article 2 of the Private International Act, a court has international jurisdiction in cases where a party or a case in dispute is substantially related to the Republic of Korea. In this case, in determining the existence of substantive relations, the court shall comply with reasonable principles consistent with the ideology of allocation of international jurisdiction in determining the existence of substantive relations, and the court shall determine the existence of international jurisdiction in consideration of the provisions of domestic law, and shall fully consider the special nature of international jurisdiction in light of the aforementioned provisions.

In addition, Article 217 (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the final judgment of a foreign court shall be recognized in accordance with the principle of international jurisdiction under the laws and regulations of the Republic of Korea or treaties. In the case of conflict of interest, the existence of the jurisdiction of a foreign court under the above provisions shall be reasonably determined in accordance with the perspective for the adequate, equitable and efficient resolution of the conflict of interest case, and the purport of the foreign judgment approval system, etc. Therefore, in order to determine that a foreign court which rendered a judgment of divorce has the jurisdiction over the foreign court as the case of conflict of interest, the other party's domicile shall be required to be located in that country, except in exceptional cases where the situation of the divorce claim is missing, or where it is deemed that there is no possibility that the other party's interest might be infringed unfairly due to the other party's active response (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu71, Apr. 12, 198).

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the deceased, who was the other party, was residing in Busan in the Republic of Korea at the time the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce with the U.S. court, and was well aware of this fact, and the deceased was not present at the U.S. court or did not respond to the above lawsuit. According to the above facts of recognition, it cannot be said that the U.S. court has jurisdiction over the above divorce case.

Therefore, the foreign judgment of this case does not meet the requirements of Article 217(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

Judges Park Young-young