[1] Whether the agreement on jurisdiction extends to a specific successor (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The case reversing the order of the court below, which held that the agreement does not extend to a specific successor to the claim for the loan, on the ground of a misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the agreement

[1] In principle, the agreement of jurisdiction is an act under the Civil Procedure Act, and it does not extend to a third party except the parties to the agreement and their general successors, but considering the substantive law that the jurisdiction is changed by the agreement of the parties to the jurisdiction, it can be changed as a condition of exercise of the right, and therefore, if the parties can freely determine the contents of the right relationship, such as a nominative claim, if the parties can freely determine the contents of the right relationship, it shall be deemed that the specific successor to the right relationship has succeeded to such changed relation of right. Therefore, the agreement of jurisdiction shall also extend

[2] The case reversing the order of the court below that the agreement does not extend to a specific successor to the claim for the loan, on the ground of a misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the agreement

[1] Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea Asset Management Corporation (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Other than 1 et al.

Seoul High Court Order 2005Ra363 dated August 11, 2005

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined.

In principle, the agreement of jurisdiction is an act under the Civil Procedure Act, and it does not affect a third party except the parties to the agreement and their general successors. However, if the agreement of the parties on jurisdiction is practically and legally deemed to be changed by the agreement of the parties on jurisdiction, it is possible to change the substantive understanding which is indivisible in the relationship of rights. Thus, if parties can freely determine the contents of the relationship of rights, such as nominative claim, the specific successor in the relationship of rights shall be deemed to succeed to the changed relation of rights so that the specific successor in the relationship of rights shall be deemed to have succeeded to the

According to the records and facts acknowledged by the court below, the Korean Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Korean Bank") conducted the loan of this case to the other party 1 from December 29, 1990 to March 21, 1997, and both parties approved the application of the basic terms and conditions for credit transactions. Article 21 of the basic terms and conditions for credit transactions of the Bank provides that "if a lawsuit is required between the bank and the debtor or guarantor or the surety, the district court shall have jurisdiction over the location of the business place of the bank." Since the business place of the Korean bank in charge of the loan of this case was the 00 U.S. Won-si, the Korean Bank transferred the bonds of this case to the other party to the re-appellant on September 30, 1998, the Korean Bank had jurisdiction over the transfer of this case's loan of this case to the other party and notified the other party of the transfer of this case's loan of this case's transfer of rights, which belongs to the above basic terms and conditions for credit transactions of this case.

Therefore, the court below held that the court below did not have jurisdiction over the lawsuit of this case since the effect of the above jurisdiction agreement between the national bank and the non-party 1 does not extend to the re-appellant who is merely the transferee of the loan claim of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the jurisdiction agreement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for reappeal pointing this out

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of reappeal, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)