Whether a Korean petitioner has jurisdiction over a case of a divorce between Korean nationals and foreign nationals, if only the Korean petitioner has his/her domicile in Korea

Where a claimant having the nationality of the Republic of Korea requests a divorce trial against the respondent having the nationality of the United States of America, the claimant has an address in the Republic of Korea as the claimant, and if the respondent abandons and is missing, the claimant's nationality is the country of origin of the claimant, and the

Article 18 of the Conflict of Laws

74Meu22 decided July 22, 1975 (Non-Korean Private Law Article 18 (1) 38, 11014 house 23 ② 520, 8587)

Claimant

appellees

The appellant and the appellee shall be divorced.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

In full view of the whole purport of the hearing in the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1) and Gap evidence No. 2 (a certified copy of resident registration) presumed to have been authenticity as an official document, the claimant is recognized as having reported marriage under the law of the Republic of Korea and the respondent, a citizen of the nationality of the United States of America, who had been living in the Republic of Korea since his birth in Jung-gu, Seoul and continuously resided in the Republic of Korea since his birth in Jung-gu.

However, in this case, since a claimant with the nationality of the Republic of Korea has filed for a divorce trial against the respondent with the nationality of the United States of America, this is a case belonging to the so-called interference legal relations. Thus, first of all, this case's jurisdiction is examined as to the jurisdiction over this case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's person holding the nationality of the Republic of Korea who has the nationality of the Republic of Korea, and the respondent abandons and is currently missing

Next, with respect to the governing law applicable to this case, the divorce is governed by the law of nationality of the father at the time of the occurrence of the cause. The country of the respondent's nationality is the United States of America and its country is the so-called non-united law country which has different laws in accordance with each state. The law of forum where both or one of the parties to the marriage has the domicile is stipulated as the governing law of the divorce. This is because there is no different law of the non-united law of the Republic of Korea to which the respondent belongs, the governing law applicable to this case is the law of the Republic of Korea to which one of the parties is the domicile of the claimant under the provisions of Article 4 of the Conflict of Laws Act.

Furthermore, in full view of the facts as to the cause of the divorce claim of this case, the defendant living together with the claimant from June 1979 to June 1, 1979, and agreed to immediately leave the petitioner to the United States and immediately leave the petitioner to the United States, and the fact that the whereabouts of the defendant could not be known.

Thus, the above facts constitute a cause for judicial divorce as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Code, and thus, the claimant's request for divorce of this case is justified, and the costs of trial shall be judged as per Disposition at the defendant's expense.

The number of judges' clubs (Presiding Judge) on the surface of the trial examiner;