Cases recognizing the validity of a foreign judgment

The New York Court's ruling procedure was conducted without service by public notice, and the New York Court's ruling as a case contains the principle of reciprocity. However, if a foreign judgment is obtained by fraud or contrary to public order, or if it approves the validity of a foreign judgment without substantive examination unless there is any defect of jurisdiction, the judgment of the New York Court shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for approval under Article 203 (2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act

Appellant (Appellee) Attorney Soh Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The respondent (Appellant) et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 87Reu203,204 decided January 11, 198

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the appellant.

On August 4, 1982, when the husband and wife filed a lawsuit seeking a divorce, etc. against the claimant on the part of the claimant and the respondent to deliver the person other than the claimant who was born between the claimant and the respondent, the judgment of the court below was rendered on December 13, 1983. The final judgment determined that the respondent's lawsuit against the claimant for a divorce, etc. against the U.S. P. P. S. P. S. P. S. P. S. P. P.C., the final judgment provided that the divorce between the claimant and the respondent and the defendant and the defendant's right to custody of the person other than the claim should be granted to the respondent and that the child support should be paid in a certain amount of amount of money, which meet the requirements for approval

On the premise of the above conclusion, the court below rejected the claimant's assertion that the above New York court's judgment procedure did not go through service by public notice, and that the petitioner appointed a legal representative, and further, pursuant to the evidence No. B No. 17 (Evidence), the New York court has maintained the principle of reciprocity adopted as a precedent in Korea. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's argument that the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud, or contrary to public documents, or that the judgment was approved as it is without real examination of the foreign judgment, and that the foreign judgment did not meet the requirements under subparagraphs 2 and 4 of Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that the court below did not meet the above requirements under subparagraphs 2 and 4 of Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the court below did not commit the illegality of the omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the process of accepting the grounds for res judicata. There is no ground for argument.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)