|
【Main Issues and Holdings】
[1] Meaning and standard of determining the term “substantively related” stipulated in Article 2(1) of the former Act on Private International Law
[2] Whether the Civil Procedure Act’s jurisdictional provisions play an important role in determining international jurisdiction (affirmative)
[3] Reasons for considering special jurisdiction in international jurisdiction
Whether the international jurisdiction of the court of the Republic of Korea can be recognized where the Defendant’s property is in the Republic of Korea at the time the Plaintiff files the lawsuit (affirmative)
Whether international jurisdiction can coexist (affirmative)
[4] In a case where Foreign Company A is a Panama corporation, and Foreign Company B is a Chinese corporation; Foreign Company B applied to the court of the Republic of India for the provisional attachment of the vessel, owned by Foreign Company A, which was granted but later revoked; Foreign Company A, claiming damages due to the illegal provisional attachment of its vessel by Foreign Company B, applied for a provisional attachment against Foreign Company B’s vessel at Busan Port and obtained a favorable decision; later, the execution of the provisional attachment was lifted through Foreign Company B’s deposit to obtain release from provisional attachment; and Foreign Company A then filed a lawsuit for damages in both Korean and Indian courts, respectively, against Foreign Company B, the case holding that the lawsuit brought by Foreign Company A to the court of the Republic of Korea can be seen to be substantively related to the Republic of Korea, and thus, the international jurisdiction of the court of the Republic of Korea is recognized
|
