A. The purport of Article 203 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act and whether the provision applies to the judgment of foreign court's divorce

B. Requirements to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a foreign court which rendered a judgment of divorce in a case of divorce and divorce

A. The purport of Article 203 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act is that in order to approve a foreign judgment in Korea, the foreign court which made the judgment should be recognized that the foreign court has international jurisdiction in accordance with the principle of international jurisdiction according to Korean law and treaties, etc. The above legal provision also applies to a foreign court's judgment of divorce.

B. Since the laws, treaties, etc. of the Republic of Korea cannot find the provisions on international jurisdiction of the divorce case in the conflict of laws and treaties, the existence of the jurisdiction of a foreign court under the above provisions in the conflict of laws and treaties shall be reasonably determined in accordance with the perspective for the propriety, fairness and efficiency of the conflict of laws and the purport of the foreign judgment approval system, etc.

Article 203 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act

Claimant

Defendant General Law Firm Dongyang, Attorneys Choi Don-eng et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 85Reu3 decided October 7, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 203 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to a foreign court's judgment of divorce. The purport of this provision is that in order to approve a foreign court's judgment in Korea, a foreign court which has rendered such judgment shall be recognized as having international jurisdiction in accordance with the principle of international jurisdiction by law or treaties, etc. of the Republic of Korea. On the other hand, the laws and treaties, etc. of the Republic of Korea cannot be found in Korea. Thus, in a case of divorce, the existence of a foreign court's jurisdiction in accordance with the above provisions shall be determined reasonably in accordance with the perspective for the proper, fair and efficient resolution of the case of divorce, and the purport of approval of the foreign court's judgment system. In order to determine that a foreign court which rendered the judgment of divorce has jurisdiction over the foreign court in the case of divorce, the other party's domicile should be the requirement of the other party's domicile, except in exceptional cases where the other party is missing, or there is no possibility of unfairly infringing his interest by actively responding to the other party's domicile.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court cited by the court below, although the respondent had a domicile in California at the time of receiving the judgment of divorce of this case against the claimant at the California California High Court of California, the court below held that the divorce between the claimant and the respondent is null and void, the respondent has no jurisdiction over the above divorce claim since there was no evidence to support that the respondent had a domicile in Korea at the time when the claimant was missing and there was no other similar circumstance or that the respondent actively respondeded to the respondent's claim of divorce. Thus, the above court's judgment cannot be deemed to have jurisdiction over the above divorce claim. Accordingly, the above judgment of the court below did not meet the requirements of Article 203 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is just in accordance with the above opinion, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the validity of the final judgment of the foreign court and the legal principles on jurisdiction of the foreign court as pointed out.

Therefore, we cannot accept it because it is merely a ground for the independent opinion.

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 Yellow-il (Presiding Justice)