In a case where overseas Koreans Gap who had a domicile in Japan filed a lawsuit with the Korean court claiming the repayment of loan obligations against overseas Koreans Eul who had a domicile in Japan, the case holding that international jurisdiction is recognized in the Korean court.

In a case where overseas Koreans Gap, who had a domicile in Japan, filed a lawsuit with the Korean court claiming the repayment of three loan obligations against the overseas Koreans Eul who had a domicile in Japan, the case holding that two of the three loan claims are reasonable to view that there are substantial relations between the disputed case and the Republic of Korea, and that there is no substantial relations between the parties or the disputed case and the forum of the Republic of Korea.

Article 2 of the Private International Act, Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Hong Hong-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Rodd, Attorneys Yellow-nam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na43329 decided December 8, 2011

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2(1) of the Private International Act provides, “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 or absence of substantial relation.” In addition, Article 2(2) provides, “the court shall consider the provisions of the domestic law and consider the existence or absence of the international jurisdiction, and shall fully consider the special nature of the international jurisdiction in light of the purport of the provision of paragraph(1).” Thus, international jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring fairness, propriety, and appropriateness, speed and economy of the judgment between the parties to the lawsuit as well as personal interests, such as equity, convenience and predictability of the parties to the lawsuit, and the interests of the court or the State, such as the appropriateness, speed and efficiency of the judgment, and the effectiveness of the judgment, shall be determined reasonably based on the objective criteria for each individual case in which there is a need to protect any interest among these diverse interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da505, Jul. 15, 2015, 2015).

2. A. The lower court determined that the instant lawsuit was a lawsuit on the property right under Article 11 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the location of the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, which was the real estate owned by the Defendant for which the provisional seizure was executed, was the Republic of Korea, but the international jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea court was not recognized on the ground

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) According to the records, the United Nations on September 11, 2003, among the instant loan claims, was paid by the Defendant to the money paid in relation to the business, such as the development, etc. of the Hancheon City Culture and Emphac, the joint representative director, and the creation of the claim itself is directly related to the development project within the Republic of Korea. The real estate owned by the Defendant, which was executed provisionally by the Plaintiff, is also the site of the said development project, and is also the land of the said development project and

In addition, the record also shows that the Plaintiff’s transfer of Japanese money of KRW 1,938,69 to the account in the name of the Nonparty, a resident in the Republic of Korea, to the account in the name of the Republic of Korea, to KRW 20,000,000 among the instant loan claims, was the money withdrawn as a check in the Republic of Korea. As such, the place where the money was received and used is the Republic of Korea and the recipient is a resident in the Republic of Korea, the said claim for KRW 20,000,000 is also a substantial relation with the Republic of Korea.

Therefore, since the above claim of 5 million UN and 20 million won is substantially related to the case in question and the Republic of Korea, it is reasonable to authorize the international jurisdiction to the Korean court.

(2) Meanwhile, according to the records, 40 million UN, among the instant loans claims, can find out the fact that the agreement on the dispute is the cause of the Plaintiff’s domicile in Japan, and no other ground exists to deem that the parties to the dispute or the disputed case has any substantial relation with the Republic of Korea, which is the suspension of law.

However, in the first instance court, the defendant did not object to a defense of violation of jurisdiction as to the existence of international jurisdiction, and only the arguments on the merits were presented, and as a result, the judgment of the first instance court was sentenced to only the matters on the merits as the result thereof, and the defendant asserted of violation of jurisdiction as to international jurisdiction when it comes to the original instance. In light of the fact that even if the pleading jurisdiction is acknowledged as stipulated in Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Act in international jurisdiction, there is no risk of undermining fairness between the parties, and rather, the dispute between the same parties can be resolved in a single and effective procedure and the economy of litigation, it is reasonable to view that the claim of this part 40,00 United Nations has the international jurisdiction in the first instance court, even if there is no substantial relation between the party or dispute and

(3) Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the claims for each of the loans in this case do not have international jurisdiction in the Korean court. This decision is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on substantial relation and pleading jurisdiction in determining the existence of international jurisdiction.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)