All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2016Da33752 Decided June 13, 2019 【Loan】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Meaning and standard of determining “substantive relations” in Article 2(1) of the Act on Private International Law [2] Whether the jurisdictional provision in the Civil Procedure Act becomes the most important criterion for determining international jurisdiction (affirmative) Whether a defendant’s place of residence as the center of his/her interest lies becomes an important matter of consideration (affirmative) [3] Reason for considering special jurisdiction in international jurisdiction, and, in a case where a defendant’s assets are located within the Republic of Korea at the time of a plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit but without direct relevance to the plaintiff’s claim, method of determining international jurisdiction [4] Standard of determining predictability in international jurisdiction, and, in a case where a defendant has built a foundation of livelihood or conducts economic activities by acquiring assets in the Republic of Korea, whether the predictability that a property-related lawsuit is filed against the defendant in a court of the Republic of Korea is recognized (affirmative) [5] Whether international jurisdiction can concurrently exist (affirmative), and whether the Korean court’s jurisdiction can readily be denied on the sole ground that courts in other countries provide better convenience in terms of geography, language, and communications compared to courts of the Republic of Korea (negative) [6] In a case where: (a) Party A, a Chinese national, who used to run a money lending business in China, entered the Republic of Korea with a view to running a business of the same nature; (b) Party B, etc., a couple with Chinese nationality, who used to operate a real estate development business in China, took up residence in the Republic of Korea; and (c) Party A brought a suit in a court of the Republic of Korea against Party B, etc. for return of the loan he lent back in China, the case holding that the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the foregoing suit is substantively related to the Republic of Korea in light of the entirety of the circumstances, and thus the court of the Republic of Korea has international jurisdiction |
|
