도메인이름 紛爭에 관한 國際栽判管轄

장준혁(Jun Hyok Jang)(張埈赫) 경희법학연구소 2006 경희법학 Vol.41 No.2

In Korean law, there are only scant statutory sources on personal jurisdiction in civil and commercial disputes. In this background, article 2 of the Korean Private International Law delineates the method of finding or developing law in this area. According to article 2, courts should try to fill this gap by analogy from the venue provisions consisting of territorial standards, while considering the different implications of intemational jurisdiction as opposed to internal venue so as to differentiate rules of jurisdiction from rules of venue, Article 2 requires the courts to clarify the bases of jurisdiction, basically in terms of territorial contacts, and in exceplional cases in terms of a mixture of territorial contacts and policy reasons, Notably, it will not be meaningful to reiterate the language of article 2 without clarifying jurisdictional standards in terms of territorial contacts. Such court practice will fail to produce a set of clear and predictable legal standards and also fail to meet the legislative intent behind article 2. Since the amendment of Korean Private International Law in 2001, there has been a clear tendency in several umpublished lower court cases that compies with such demand as expressed in article 2. According to these judgments, lower courts tend to look for concrete criteria of special jurisdiction in terms of territorial contacts between the dispute and the forum. In the process of such judicial lawmaking the courts will in most cases ask what type of legal relationship is in dispute and which territorial contacts should be the key factor in cach type of case. In this regard, it is surprising to note that the Korean Supreme Court, in its hpweb.com decision in 2005, pursued and opposite way, Literally understood, this precedent requires the courts to focus on the location of evidences, instead of trying to localize the case. If the forum is the locus of most of the evidences on the merits, the court shall have jurisdiction unless there are extraordinary circumstances that shall lead the court to deny its jurisdiction. In this viewpoint, the hpweb.com judgment presents a général theory of personal jurisdiction which seriously underestimates the need of clear and predictable criteria of jurisdiction. This jurisprudence is out of line with the mainstream case law of the Korean Supreme Court that has developed so far. It is submitted that the preoedential value of this judgment should be narrowly construed so as to be confined to the specific facts of the case. The domain name can be a subject of two kinds of disputes, namely infringement of a trademark or another right committed by use of a domain name, and infringement of a right to own a domain name. If the court has special jurisdiction over either one of them, the court will also have jurisdiction over the traditional framework is not without a problem. First, the place of tort jurisdiction should be guarded against overextension. This jurisdictional basis may become more problematic when combined with jurisdiction over a related claim, which increases the importance of narrowing the place of tort concept. On the other hand, a problem is created if the tortfeasor files a lawsuit for a negative declaration of his own tortious liability at the place of tortious act at his choice, because it effectively defeat the policy of preference for the victim. The lower court judgments have tried to manage this problem by imposing purposeful availment standard as borrowed from Justice O Connor s plurality in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 115, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1034. These precedents reason that jurisdiction may be asserted in the place of tortious result, only if the defendant has purposefully availed the privilèges or benefits of the legal system in that place by way of specific positive activity within or targeted at that place.

ICJ의 物的管轄과 殘餘管轄條項

박현석(Park Hyun Seok)(朴賢錫) 국제법평론회 2008 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.27

국제법원들의 수가 점차 늘어남에 따라 동일한 국제법상의 문제에 대한 판례의 충돌 가능성과 아울러 그 관할권의 충돌 가능성이 각국 외교실무자와 국제법학계의 관심사로 대두되었다. 국제법원들의 관할권이 미치는 범위가 서로 다르다면 동일한 사항에 대한 관할권이 둘 이상의 국제법원에 있는 일은 없겠으나, ICJ의 관할권이 미치는 범위는 매우 넓으므로 다른 국제법원과 ICJ 사이에는 관할권의 적극적 충돌이 발생할 수 있을 것이다. 잔여관할조항은 이러한 관할권의 적극적 충돌을 방지하기 위해 고안된 것으로, 특정 국제법원의 관할권을 수락할 때 다른 국제법원의 관할권에 속하는 사항은 그 수락 범위에서 제외하는 조항이다. 잔여관할조항은 PCIJ와 ICJ의 의무적 관할권을 수락하는 선언뿐만 아니라 UN해양법협약 제282조와 같은 현행 조약의 분쟁해결조항에도 포함되어 있으나, 남방참다랑어 사건에서 드러난 바와 같이 잔여관할조항들로 인해 새로운 형태의 관할권 충돌 문제가 발생할 수 있다. 남방참다랑어 사건에서 일본은 이 사건 소송 당사국들이 모두 ICJ의 의무적 관할권을 수락했다는 사실과 UN해양법협약 제282조의 잔여관할조항을 들어 수소법원인 중재법원에 관할권이 없다는 본안전 항변을 제기하면서, 만약 호주와 뉴질랜드가 ICJ에 제소했더라도 그 의무적 관할권 수락 선언에 포함된 잔여관할조항을 들어 다시 ICJ에 관할권이 없다는 본안전 항변을 제기했을 것이라고 밝혔던 것이다. 만약 이 사건 수소법원인 중재법원이 UN해양법협약 제282조를 근거로 관할권을 행사하지 않고 또 ICJ가 일본, 호주, 뉴질랜드의 상기 선언에 포함된 잔여관할조항을 근거로 관할권을 행사하지 않는다면 두 국제법원 사이에는 관할권의 소극적 충돌이 발생하게 된다. 국제법원들 사이의 관계에서는 관할법원을 지정할 직근 상급법원이 없다. 또 현행 국제법상 후소법원이 소송절차를 일시 정지해야 한다거나 전소판결의 기판력이 전소법원 아닌 후소법원까지 구속한다는 확립된 규칙도 없는 것으로 보인다. 결국 잔여관할조항을 삽입하려는 국가로서는 그로 인해 발생할 수 있는 소극적 관할권 충돌 문제의 해결 방안에도 주의를 기울일 필요가 있을 것이며, 잔여관할조항을 포함하는 분쟁해결조항에 후소법원에 의한 그 소송절차의 일시 정지나 후소법원을 구속하는 전소판결의 기판력을 명시하는 것은 그러한 방안의 하나가 될 수 있을 것이다. The proliferation international courts and tribunals raises questions of conflict between these courts and tribunals. Two kinds of conflict might develop: conflict of jurisdiction, which this paper addresses, and conflict of jurisprudence. In view of its wide scope, the jurisdiction of the ICJ may overlap with that of other international courts or tribunals. A residual jurisdiction clause, which excludes those disputes which the parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to submit to some other procedure from the jurisdiction of the international court or tribunal in question, has been regarded as an effective way to avoid the possible conflict of jurisdiction between international courts and tribunals. While such a clause has been used in a number of declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ as well as in dispute settlement clauses contained in treaties, residual jurisdiction clauses themselves might cause a new type of jurisdictional conflict. In the Southern Bluefin Tuna case, Japan has invoked the residual jurisdiction clause in Article 282 of the UNCLOS to prevent the Arbitral Tribunal from exercising its jurisdiction. And it has also declared that to prevent the ICJ from exercising its jurisdiction it would invoke before the ICJ the residual jurisdiction clauses in the declarations made by the parties to the instant case accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. In such a situation, negative conflict of jurisdiction would occur between international courts and tribunals. In the relations among international courts and tribunals, there is no higher court io resolve the possible conflict of jurisdiction. It seems doubtful whether the judgment of the first-in-time international court or tribunal on preliminary questions binds the second-in-time one as a res judicata. In this respect, negative conflict of jurisdiction between international courts and tribunals could be avoided by inserting a res judicata clause in treaty provisions or other international instruments conferring compulsory jurisdiction on an international court or tribunal.

2022년 개정 국제사법상 지식재산권 관련 소의 국제재판관할 문제: 총칙과 각칙의 검토

이주연 한국국제사법학회 2022 國際私法硏究 Vol.28 No.1

The 2022 Korean Act on Private International Law (hereinafter “the Act”), which was amended in January 2022 and shall come into force in July 2022, contains several new provisions on the jurisdiction matters in international litigation over intellectual property rights. This is a significant development in that it makes it possible to predict jurisdictional issues for the parties in a legal dispute to be brought to Korean court, those who enter into a contract related to intellectual property rights, and intellectual property right holders and infringers who might become parties to a legal dispute. In international litigations over intellectual property rights, the following provisions may be relevant: general jurisdiction as the country of the defendant’s habitual residence (Art. 3), specific jurisdiction as the country of the principal place of business, the place of doing business, and the location of property (Arts. 4 and 5). By simply defining the requirements of objective joinder of claims (Art. 6(1)), jurisdiction in counteraction (Art. 7), and subjective joinder of claims (Art. 6(2)), the 2022 Korean Act on Private International Law opens the way to resolve multiple claims or disputes between multiple parties at once. Jurisdiction by Agreement (Art. 8) and Jurisdiction by Pleading (Art. 9) are not applicable to the matters under exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court. Whether a matter is under exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court can also be determined by the Act. Among international litigations over intellectual property rights, the Act stipulates litigations over entries in registers of intellectual property rights (Art. 10(1)(i)) and litigations over establishment, validity, or extinguishment of registered intellectual property rights (Art. 10 (1)(iv)) as matters under exclusive jurisdiction. The Special Part of the Act stipulates specific jurisdiction in litigations over contracts related to intellectual property rights (Art. 38) and specific jurisdiction in litigations over infringement of intellectual property rights (Art. 39). This is the result of distinguishing—based on the principle of territoriality—specific jurisdiction in litigations over contracts related to intellectual property rights and infringement of intellectual property rights from specific jurisdiction in litigations over general contracts and torts. There remains a question on whether to apply the provisions on intellectual property rights in the Special Part to trade secrets and portraits of celebrities subject to the rights of publicity. Even for matters related to intellectual property rights, if it falls under consumer contracts or employment contracts, the provision on jurisdiction over consumer contracts or employment contracts must be applied. Finally, it needs to be remembered that the Act does not prescribe all the matters related to international litigation over intellectual property rights. If no provision on specific jurisdiction applies to a case, the general principles in Article 2 will determine whether Korean court has jurisdiction over the case by deciding whether a party or a case in dispute is substantively related to Korea. 올해 초 전부개정되어 곧 시행을 앞두고 있는 우리 국제사법은 국제지식재산권소송과 관련하여 의미 있는 여러 관할규정을 신설하였다. 이는 우리 법원에 제소하려는 지식재산권 분쟁의 당사자는 물론이고 지식재산권 계약을 체결하는 자, 그리고 지식재산권자와 이용자(잠재적 침해자) 사이의 잠재적인 법적 분쟁에서 관할권 문제를 예측할 수 있도록 하였다는 데 큰 의미가 있다. 총칙편에 위치한 피고의 일상거소국 법원으로서의 우리 법원의 일반관할권(제3조)뿐 아니라 사무소·영업소 소재지국, 사업·영업활동지국, 재산소재지국 법원으로서의 특별관할권(제4조와 제5조)도 국제지식재산권소송에서 의미가 있을 수 있다. 우리 국제사법은 청구의 객관적 병합(제6조 제1항)과 반소관할(제7조), 청구의 주관적 병합(제6조 제2항)의 요건을 간소하게 규정하는 방식을 취하여 국제지식재산권소송에서 양 당사자 사이의 복수의 청구 및 복수 당사자 사이의 분쟁을 일회적으로 해결할 수 있는 길을 일응 넓게 열어 두었다. 합의관할(제8조) 및 변론관할(제9조)은 외국 법원의 전속관할사항에 대하여는 인정될 수 없는데, 외국 법원의 전속관할사항인지 여부는 우리 국제사법에 의해서도 판단할 수 있다. 국제지식재산권소송에서 전속관할사항으로 총칙편에서 지식재산권 등록부의 등록에 관한 소(제10조 제1항 제1호)와 등록지식재산권 성립, 유효성 또는 소멸에 관한 소(제10조 제1항 제4호)를 규정하였다. 각칙편에서는 지식재산권 계약에 관한 소의 특별관할(제38조)과 지식재산권 침해에 관한 소의 특별관할(제39조)을 규정하였다. 이는 지식재산권의 속지적 성격에 근거하여 일반 계약에 관한 소의 특별관할과 일반불법행위에 관한 소의 특별관할에 의하지 않고 달리 취급한 것이다. 한편 영업비밀과 퍼블리시티권의 대상인 유명인의 초상 등에 대하여도 지식재산권 각칙편에 규정된 위의 조항에 의할 것인지의 문제가 있다. 그리고 지식재산권 계약이라 하더라도 소비자계약과 근로계약에 해당하는 경우에는 소비자계약의 관할과 근로계약의 관할이 적용되어야 한다. . 마지막으로 잊지 말아야 할 것은, 이번 개정 국제사법이 국제지식재산권소송과 관련된 모든 사항을 규정한 것은 아니라는 점이다. 즉, 개별규칙에서 우리 법원 관할권의 근거를 찾을 수 없는 경우에도 국제사법 제2조의 일반원칙에 따라 당사자 또는 분쟁이 된 사안과 우리나라와 실질적 관련이 있다면 우리 법원의 관할권이 인정될 수 있을 것이다.

재산관계에 관한 국제재판관할법의 2022년 개정

장준혁 한국민사소송법학회 2022 민사소송 Vol.26 No.3

In creating the new rules on international jurisdiction created in 2022, the drafters put an emphasis and focus on patrimonial matters. This led to an effort to provide for detailed and sophisticated rules as far as practicable. The legislative model was found in the 1999 Hague Preliminary Draft and the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention. So the new rules follow the continental European style of legislation. Concise provisions without detailed clarification were preferred. Naturally, the drafters sought to strictly limit each basis of jurisdiction, so as to stay away from exorbitant jurisdiction. Particularly notable is the broad limitation imposed on the place-of-performance jurisdiction for contract cases (Art. 41). A strict limitation was also introduced on the jurisdiction over related claims when they are filed against different defendants (Art. 6(2)). However, legislative clarification was not made throughout the amendment. In some places, the drafters minimized the breadth of legislative resolution and chose to defer difficult issues to interpretation. The prime example would be the criteria for establishing a habitual residence. Further limitation to tort jurisdiction at the place of harm, other than the condition of predictability, is also left to the academia and the courts. Establishing the rules of jurisdiction for internal matters of a trust was wholly left as a future task. Notwithstanding this legislative vacuum, the settlor should be allowed make a unilateral choice of forum, although this will be a point of debate. In some heads of jurisdiction, the drafters chose to expand the available grounds of jurisdiction, rather than trying to limit them. Justification was found in the realistic considerations and being an autonomous legislation. In this connection, particular attention was paid to the rules of internal jurisdiction provided in the Civil Procedure Act and the rules of international jurisdiction provided in the Japanese Civil Procedure Act as amended in 2011. Special jurisdiction at the place of “continuous and systematic activity” was newly introduced (Art. 4, para. 2); jurisdiction over related claims between the same parties was also preserved (Art. 6, para. 1); the bases of jurisdiction over counterclaims were even expanded, so that a connection with the defense will generally suffice (Art. 7); forum patrimonii as restricted by the “substantial connection” test was also preserved, taking into account the convenience of enforcement (Art. 5 ii); the place-of-performance jurisdiction was broadly preserved in the case characteristic performance is clearly defined (Art. 41, para. 1); contract jurisdiction is to be upheld without limitation at the place of performance (Art. 41, para. 2); no particular limitation is imposed on the contractual agreement over the place of delivery (Art. 41, para. 2), leaving open the possibility of allowing a fictitious agreement to some degree. The new law also sought to provide for sufficiently wide-ranging set of jurisdictional bases for special jurisdiction for contracts in intellectual property (Art. 38) and that for infringement of intellectual property (Art. 39). Forum patrimonii as limited by the substantial connect test (Art. 5 ii) and the forum non conveniens provision (Art. 12) deserve special attention, in that they leave a large room of discretion to judges. The two provisions has a potential to function positively by introducing flexibility. Meanwhile, they may end up hindering the interpretive development of sophisticated standards and greater uncertainty. Forum patrimonii, even functioning under the constraint of the “substantial connection” test, should only remain a final resort and play its proper function. An excessive use of this basis will cause stagnation of the further development of the Korean law of international jurisdiction, and will practically cause difficulty in having Korean judgments recognized and enforced abroad. For...

인터넷에 의한 통상의 계약에 관한 소의 국제재판관할

김효정 연세법학회 2024 연세법학 Vol.0 No.44

인터넷은 현실의 물리적 공간을 전제로 하지 않고 비대면성과 익명성, 어느 곳에서나 접속이 가능하다는 고유한 특성을 가지고 있으므로 인터넷에 의한 국제적 분쟁에 현실공간을 전제로 한 국제재판관할에 관한 입법 및 이론을 그대로 적용하는 경우 부적절한 결과를 초래할 수 있다. 인터넷은 지리적 한계를 초월하므로 전 세계 어느 곳에서나 국제재판관할이 인정될 가능성이 있기 때문이다. 2022년 전부개정 국제사법(2022. 1. 4. 전부개정, 2022. 7. 5. 시행, 이하 ‘개정 국제사법’이라고 한다. 2022년 전부개정 전 국제사법은 이하 ‘구 국제사법’이라고 한다.)은 정치한 국제재판관할에 관한 규정들을 도입함으로써 국제재판관할 판단시 법적 안정성과 예측가능성을 제고하였으나, 개정 국제사법 하에서도 인터넷에 의한 국제적 분쟁을 소송을 통하여 해결하고자 하는 경우 어느 국가의 법원이 국제재판관할을 가지는지 명확하지 않다. 본 논문에서는 인터넷에 의한 계약에 관한 소가 대한민국 법원에 제기되었을 때 개정 국제사법상 계약에 관한 소의 국제재판관할 규정을 인터넷의 특성을 고려하여 어떻게 해석하여야 하는지에 관한 구체적 제안을 하였다. 본 논문은 인터넷에 의한 통상의 계약에 관한 소의 국제재판관할을 결정함에 있어서 위 소에 대하여 구 국제사법이 적용된 판례의 검토를 통해 구 국제사법 하에서 인터넷에 의한 통상의 계약에 관한 소의 국제재판관할 판단시 어떠한 요소들을 고려하였는지를 검토하였다. 다음으로 개정 국제사법상 인터넷에 의한 통상의 계약에 관한 소의 국제재판관할을 결정함에 있어서 계약에 관한 소의 특별관할을 규정한 개정 국제사법 제41조를 살펴보았다. 개정 국제사법 하에서 인터넷에 의한 통상의 계약이 개정 국제사법 제41조 제1항의 전형적 계약에 해당되는지, 아니면 개정 국제사법 제41조 제2항의 기타 유형의 계약에 해당되는지에 대한 기준을 제시하는 한편, 제41조 제1항과 제41조 제2항을 적용함에 따른 차이를 밝혔다. 특히 개정 국제사법 제41조 제2항의 계약에 해당되는 경우에 “청구의 근거인 의무가 이행된 곳”을 ‘서버 소재지’로 해석하게 되면 인터넷 사업자의 상대방의 예측가능성을 침해하는 반면, ‘접속가능성이 있는 모든 장소’로 해석하게 되면 인터넷 사업자의 예측가능성을 침해하게 된다는 점을 밝히고, 국제조약의 입장과 양당사자의 합리적 예측가능성을 고려하여 ‘채무자인 인터넷 사업자의 소재지’를 의무이행지로 보아야 한다는 해석론을 제시하였다. 나아가 인터넷에 의한 통상의 계약 체결시 전속적 국제재판관할합의를 하는 경우, 개정 국제사법 제8조 제1항 및 제5항은 전속적 국제재판관할합의의 유효요건으로 당해 사건과 지정된 외국법원과의 ‘합리적인 관련성’을 요구하지 않는다. 따라서 인터넷에 의한 통상의 계약 체결시 당사자들이 당해 사건과 관련이 없는 중립적인 제3국의 법원을 관할법원으로 하는 전속적 국제재판관할합의를 하더라도 그 관할합의의 효력이 인정될 수 있다는 점을 지적하였다. 또한 인터넷에 의한 통상의 계약에 관한 소의 국제재판관할을 판단함에 있어 개정 국제사법 제3조의 일반관할과 제4조의 사무소・영업소 소재지 및 영업활동에 근거한 특별관할, 개정 국제사법 제2조의 일반원칙도 적용될 수 있음을 밝혔다. 인터넷에 의한 통상의 계약에 관한 소의 국제재판관할의 ... The Internet does not assume a real physical space and has unique characteristics such as non-face-to-face, anonymity, and access from anywhere. Therefore, if legislation and theories on international jurisdiction based on the premise of real space are applied directly to international disputes over the Internet, inappropriate results may occur. Since the Internet transcends geographical limitations, there is a possibility that international jurisdiction will be recognized anywhere in the world. The 2022 full revision of Korean Act on Private International Law (completely revised on January 4, 2022, effective on July 5, 2022, hereinafter ‘Revised KOPIL’) enhanced legal stability and predictability in determining international jurisdiction by introducing regulations on international judicial jurisdiction. However, even under the Revised KOPIL, it is not clear which country’s court has international jurisdiction when resolving an international dispute over the Internet through litigation. In this study, taking the characteristics of the Internet into account, specific suggestions have been made on how the provisions on international jurisdiction over lawsuits regarding contracts concluded via the Internet under the Revised KOPIL should be interpreted. This study researched what factors would be considered in determining the international jurisdiction over lawsuits regarding ordinary contracts via the Internet under the Pre-Revised KOPIL through reviewing courts’ precedents in which Pre-Revised KOPIL was applied. Next, in determining the international jurisdiction for lawsuits related to ordinary contracts via the Internet under the Revised KOPIL, this study examined Article 41 of the Revised KOPIL, which stipulates special jurisdiction for lawsuits related to ordinary contracts. This study also provided standards for whether a contract falls under a typical contract pursuant to Article 41(1), or other types of contracts pursuant to Article 41(2), and pointed out the differences in applying either Articles 41(1) or Article 41(2). In particular, in case of a contract under Article 41(2) of the Revised KOPIL, interpreting “the place where the obligations that formed the basis of the claim were performed” as the ‘location of the server’ would infringe on the predictability of the other party of the Internet business operator, while interpreting it as ‘any place with accessibility’ would infringes on the predictability of the Internet business operator. Therefore, in consideration of both the position of international treaties and the reasonable predictability of each party, this study suggested an appropriate interpretation that the ‘location of the Internet business operator as a debtor’ should be regarded as “the place where the obligations that formed the basis of the claim were performed” under Article 41(2) of the Revised KOPIL. Furthermore, when an agreement is made on exclusive international jurisdiction when concluding a ordinary contract over the Internet, Paragraphs 1 and 5 of Article 8 of the Revised KOPIL, do not require “reasonable relationship” between the case and the designated foreign court as a condition for validity of the agreement. Therefore, this study pointed out that when concluding a ordinary contract over the Internet, the effect of the exclusive jurisdiction agreement may be recognized even if the parties agree for a court in a neutral third country unrelated to the case as the court of jurisdiction. In addition, in determining the international jurisdiction for lawsuits related to ordinary contracts over the Internet, the general jurisdiction under Article 3, the special jurisdiction based on the locations of offices or places of business and operating activities under Article 4, and the general principles of Article 2 of the Revised KOPIL could be applied. Even though there is a lot of theoretical and practical confusion regarding the determination of international j...

부양사건의 국제재판관할

장준혁(Jang Jun Hyok) 한국가족법학회 2017 가족법연구 Vol.31 No.1

Korean law lacks in a statutory provision on special jurisdiction over a maintenance obligation arising from family relationship. The question of international maintenance jurisdiction is left to interpretation under the general guidance clause of Article 2 of the Korean Private International Law. There is no dispute in acknowledging jurisdiction at the defendant s habitual residence (or domicile). In addition, jurisdiction might also be upheld at the place of performance and the place of defendant s property, as long as support cases could be characterized as proprietary cases in a broader sense. The current state of law falls short of being a desirable one, because the two following essential points need to be upheld but are not yet supported by clear authority. Firstly, a maintenance creditor, who will typically be a claimant, cannot sue in his or her own court. The place-of-performance jurisdiction should be limited to contract cases and comparable “civil and commercial” cases such as unjust enrichment. The obligation to provide monetary support arising from family relationship should be treated differently from a contractual or other proprietary obligation. Secondly, the location of property should be the last resort and its applicability should be appropriately limited. Place of property should not be allowed to serve as a basis of maintenance jurisdiction at all. Indeed, this controversial head of jurisdiction has no proper function to serve in the area of maintenance, because a maintenance creditor should be allowed to sue in his or her own court any way. Moreover, a maintenance creditor should also be protected from being sued in a mere place of property by a maintenance debtor. While it is theoretically possible to argue for the above set of rules under the current Article 2 of the Korean Private International Law, which looks to internal jurisdiction rules for guidance in a possibly selective way, it is not realistic to expect Korean case law to develop this way, considering their deep attachment to the room of manoever under Article 2 and their persistent efforts to broaden judicial discretion in this regard. This strange impasse between the legislative guidance and the judicial pursuit of institutional self-interest inevitably will lead anybody interested in this area to demand a legislative reform. There are a series of concrete issues for the Korean legislator to consider. Regarding the necessity of having a maintenance creditor s jurisdiction, no objection has yet been raised in past discussions in Korea. An issue of minor but delicate importance is which personal connecting factor to adopt in the statutory provision. The majority of legislations abroad indicate a depart from domicile and a converging trend toward habitual residence. The idea is that maintenance creditor should be allowed to sue at his or her habitual residence, without having to establish his domicile there. However, there may be practical value in upholding jurisdiction at the creditor s “domicile” as well as his or her habitual residence, because it may be easier for the creditor to prove his “domicile”. But one should also note that this residual role of “domicile”-based jurisdiction will only play a minor role. Therefore, the national legislator may perhaps be satisfied with defining maintenance creditor s jurisdiction in the state of his habitual residence. In addition to the maintenance creditor s habitual residence, it would be proper to admit a few other bases of jurisdiction. Here consideration should be given to the nature of maintenance claim. It is a claim that arises out of a family relationship, but once it is created, it takes the form of a monetary claim. On the one hand, maintenance claim is closely related to the family relationship from which maintenance obligation arises.

ISSUES AND TENDENCIES IN REFORMING KOREAN LAW OF INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION

Junhyok Jang 한양대학교 법학연구소 2014 Hanyang Journal of Law Vol.1 No.-

Korean law of international jurisdiction had relied heavily on the Koreanized form of the “special circumstances” doctrine until 2001, when the general clause of Article 2 was introduced. While this clause was greeted by the courts and cherished by the private international academia that led the process of creating it, the courts failed to implement Article 2 in a coherent and consistent way. In this background, it is undeniably a significant move for the Korean Ministry of Justice to work for a comprehensive legislation for international jurisdiction. The most crucial and perhaps the hardest issue will be the question of certainty versus flexibility. The drafters would need to aim at the optimal balance between the two considerations, in formulating each independent rule as well as general clause(s). In this respect, it is all the more interesting to see what kind of value judgment will be made and how it will be expressed in language in the Private International Law Reform Committee in Korea.

국제사법 제2조상의 국제재판관할 관련 우리나라 판례의 검토

최성수(Choi Sung-Soo) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2010 東亞法學 Vol.- No.48

International jurisdiction depends on what court of specific country as a whole should try legal contestation or what specific country as a whole responsibility for trial should be distributed to. When international private law was totally revised on April 7, 2001, the general principle of international jurisdiction out of international private law (article 2) was newly established transitionally. Although it was regulations in a general form of ‘substantial connection’, it will be an important ground to judge international jurisdiction in the future Although the parties to a suit may not be secured predictability or legal stability because of the abstract standard of ‘substantial connection’ in international private law (article2), it is expected that a distinct standard will appear since cases are being created reflecting revised contents after revising international private law. More distinct trend will be disclosed through more accumulated cases in the future. However, Cases in the present have become a trend which judges international jurisdiction in proper application of indications such as ‘ideals of allocation in international jurisdiction’, ‘jurisdiction of domestic law’ and ‘uniqueness of international jurisdiction’ suggested in international private law (article 2) including the indication of ‘substantial connection’. At least, it is being escaped from a trend which judges international jurisdiction in the category of regulations and sound reasoning in land jurisdiction as the past cases. International private law (article 2) is not simple reflection of the existing cases of Supreme Court. In international private law (article 2), a new standard of judgment is established. However, Supreme Court from the above regulation is still in the process of setting up its position. As partial cases are seen, an attitude of inclusive judgment after arranging conditions without establishment of reasonable logic by being inclined to only the abstract standard of substantial connection should be sublated. In the future, inclusive cases integrating laws, regulations and theories in the present in the position of Supreme Court should be created. Based on relatively distinct cases as above, it is expected that the parties to a suit including practical officers will have predictability in instituting a lawsuit. In addition, it is necessary to watch over in what direction international treaty and legislation and international jurisdiction related cases of major countries including South Korea are developed in the side of comparative law to get more information for setting up Korean cases.

離婚訴訟의 國際管轄­ 1975년까지의 법원실무 ­

장준혁 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.3

Before 1975, the case law in Korea on international divorce jurisdiction developed almost entirely through unpublished cases in lower courts. The majority of lower court decisions recognized jurisdiction based on husband's nationality as well as jurisdiction based on either spouse's domicile. Only in minor cases, jurisdictional bases were more narrowly defined. Overall, however, there was a good balance between the idea of nationality-based jurisdiction and domicile-based jurisdiction, while it was still regrettable that the court practice refused to recognize wife's nationality as a jurisdictional base. Under such broad definition of jurisdictional bases, the lower courts scarcely found it necessary to rely on forum legis or jurisdictional renvoi, or to resort too frequently to the idea of voluntary submission or necessity. This tendency of the early lower court cases contrasts with the two later decisions of the Korean Supreme Court, Judgment of July 22, 1975, 74meu22 and Judgment of May 26, 2006, 2005meu884.

미국 민사절차 상의 특정관할의 광범위한 적용

최영란 ( Choi Young-ran ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2021 법학논총 Vol.38 No.3

2021년 3월 미국 연방대법원은 몬타나주와 미네소타주 법원이 포드 자동차 회사에 대해 특정 인적관할을 행사할 수 있다고 결정하였다. 해당 판결은 몬타나주와 미네소타 주민이 포드의 하자있는 중고 자동차 사고로 인해 사망하거나 상해를 입어, 포드 회사를 상대로 제조물 책임소송을 제기하자, 포드 회사는 사고 차량이 몬타나와 미네소타에서 디자인, 제조 또는 판매되지 않았기에, 해당 주 법원은 포드 회사에 대해 특정 인적관할이 없다고 주장하였다. 그러나 연방대법원은 원고의 소송과 피고의 법정지에서의 접촉(contacts) 또는 활동(conduct)과의 연관성을 요구하는 특정관할의 기본 원칙을 새롭게 확대 해석하여, 원고의 소송이 피고의 법정지에서의 활동에서 기인되지 않더라도, 피고가 법정지와 단순한 관련이 있는 경우에도 법정지의 특정관할이 인정될 수 있음을 시사하였다. 향후 인터넷 등을 통해 광고 또는 판매를 하는 다국적 회사 등이 미국 소비자의 거주지 법원이나 회사와 관련성이 미미한 법원에서 제소될 경우, 해당 판결이 재판관할 여부를 판단하는 데, 주요 법원칙이 될 수 있어, 본 논문에서 특정관할의 원칙을 일부 소개하고, 해당 판결의 논의사항을 검토한다. In March, 2021, the United States Supreme Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court decided on specific jurisdiction for two cases against Ford Motor, a world-wide automobile company, being sued in Montana and Minnesota where Ford’s used cars caused death to a Montana resident and inflicted personal injury to a Minnesota resident. Ford argued that courts in Montana and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over Ford because its vehicles involved in the accidents and injured non-residents of these states were not designed, manufactured, or sold directly by Ford in those States even if the accidents occurred in those states. The Court and Ford relied on a principle of specific jurisdiction: “The plaintiff’s claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” For the first time, the Court suggested two tests for specific jurisdiction from: one is a causation test from the first phrase “arise out of,” and the other is a relation test from the second phrase “relate to,” meaning “some relationship without a causal showing.” Ford argued that courts in Montana and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over Ford since its vehicles involved in the accidents and injured non-residents of these states were not designed, manufactured, or sold directly by Ford in those States even if the accidents occurred in those states. However, the Court approved specific jurisdiction of Montana and Minnesota, by rejecting Ford’s causation-only approach, instead by applying the new relationship test. This paper overviews rules of personal jurisdiction including general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction, and observes discussions in this recent Ford case.