The proposed extensive amendment to the Non-public International Law (the “amended PIL”) was accepted by the plenary session of the National Assembly on December 9, 2021 and is productive from July 5, 2022. As a consequence of this extensive modification, the amended PIL has 35 new provisions relating to intercontinental jurisdiction in the standard provisions and the respective provisions, giving detailed procedures as opposed to the previous PIL which offered only a single report environment out the principle. 7 provisions out of the present 62 provisions have been amended as well. Thanks to the modification, enhanced prediction relating to international jurisdiction has grow to be attainable, and a new procedure is now in position to be certain propriety in specific instances relating to worldwide jurisdiction.
The amended PIL features the pursuing newly additional provisions: i) a “General Principle” provision presenting the concrete standards of “equity among functions and satisfactory, prompt or financial trial,” as supplied by court precedents, with regards to the this means of “substantively related”, which is in theory the typical for international jurisdiction ii) a different “International Jurisdiction” section, which incorporates the provisions corresponding to the jurisdiction provisions beneath the Civil Treatment Act, including normal jurisdiction, jurisdiction in relevant situations, jurisdiction about counterclaim, jurisdiction by settlement, jurisdiction by pleading, special jurisdiction and many others iii) new provisions relating to global parallel proceedings, non-exercising of worldwide jurisdiction for fair allocation of international jurisdiction, and jurisdiction over preservative measure and iv) in the respective provisions, new provisions relating to jurisdiction about lawsuits on intellectual home right contracts or infringements, lawsuits relating to contract or tort, and client contracts.
I. Presenting Concrete Conditions for Pinpointing Intercontinental Jurisdiction (Post 2)
The amended PIL sets forth in Write-up 2(1) the standards for deciding global jurisdiction as furnished by the related court docket precedents. Additional, in the minimal conditions that Non-public International Legislation or other statutes or treaties are silent as regards worldwide jurisdiction, the amended PIL permits a court docket to ascertain international jurisdiction by getting into consideration the jurisdiction provisions of the relevant domestic laws and contemplating the unique nature of international jurisdiction.[1]
II. New Comprehensive Provisions on Worldwide Jurisdiction Corresponding to Jurisdiction Provisions in the Civil Method Act
A. General jurisdiction (Report 3)
The amended PIL supplies for normal jurisdiction in Posting 3 by expressly stating that a Korean court docket has jurisdiction in excess of a lawsuit filed against any man or woman possessing habitual residence in Korea, or any corporation having a principal place of work, a spot of business enterprise or a base underneath the posts of incorporation or a principal middle of management in Korea, or a company or entity integrated in accordance with Korean regulation.
B. Unique jurisdiction (Posts 3 by means of 10)
-
Special jurisdiction based mostly on the site of business office or a position of office or business exercise (Write-up 4) Report 4(1) of the amended PIL states that a Korean court docket has worldwide jurisdiction around a lawsuit in opposition to any individual, company or entity obtaining an business office or a place of business in Korea in the function that the lawsuit is “related to the business” of such place of work or a spot of enterprise in Korea. In addition, Short article 4(2) states that a lawsuit can be filed towards a individual, corporation or entity carrying out a “continuous and organized business enterprise or business activity” “toward” Korea in relation to this sort of small business or business action. This provision would have substantial implications on e-commerce.
-
Specific jurisdiction primarily based on the site of residence (Write-up 5) If the topic issue of a lawsuit is house or the defendant’s house issue to attachment is situated in Korea, a lawsuit can be filed with the local Korean courtroom in the place in which the home in concern is positioned. Nevertheless, even the place the residence subject to attachment is located in Korea, particular jurisdiction fails if the subject matter subject in dispute has no or small relevance with Korea or the price of such property is de minimis.
-
Worldwide jurisdiction more than multiple relevant promises (Short article 6) If a Korean court has worldwide jurisdiction above one of many claims that are closely connected to a person another, this sort of numerous claims can be consolidated to be listened to by the Korean court. The aforementioned “closely related” necessity applies even the place there are two or far more defendants, and if a Korean court docket has typical jurisdiction over one of the co-defendants less than Write-up 3 of the amended PIL, lawsuits in opposition to the co-defendants can be submitted as a single lawsuit with the Korean courtroom only if it is necessary to steer clear of contradictory proceedings simply because statements from the to start with defendant are closely related to claims towards the other co-defendants.
-
Global jurisdiction around a counterclaim (Write-up 7) A defendant can file a counterclaim with the court docket in which the principal lawsuit is pending, only if i) the court has intercontinental jurisdiction more than the principal lawsuit ii) the filing of the counterclaim would not noticeably delay the proceedings and iii) the counterclaim is closely related, in conditions of the fashion in which the claim is becoming asserted or defended, with the principal lawsuit.
-
Jurisdiction by agreement (Report 8) When Post 8(1) of the amended PIL allows parties to concur on international jurisdiction, the amended PIL invalidates these types of arrangement on global jurisdiction: a) if the settlement is ineffective in accordance with the rules of the place that has intercontinental jurisdiction on the basis of the arrangement b) if both occasion to the agreement had no capacity to enter into an settlement c) if, beneath Korean law or a treaty, a country other than the place agreed by the events have exclusive international jurisdiction more than the lawsuit or d) if accepting the settlement is evidently contrary to good morals and public plan in the region the place the lawsuit is pending. An settlement on worldwide jurisdiction should be manufactured in writing, together with by e-mail or other digital indicates of conversation. If these settlement can take the type of an short article in a deal among the functions, the invalidity of any of the other provisions for the duration of the term of the agreement will not have an affect on the provision on the settlement on worldwide jurisdiction (Report 8(2) & (4)). Jurisdiction by agreement is presumed to be exceptional (Report 8(3)). If there exists an arrangement on distinctive jurisdiction of a alternative of court docket, a Korean court docket is essential to reject a lawsuit submitted with the Korean court docket, unless of course: a) the agreement is ineffective under Paragraph (1) b) the court has jurisdiction to listen to the circumstance in accordance with Report 9 c) a courtroom of the country possessing worldwide jurisdiction as for every the parties’ settlement decides not to hear the situation or d) there exists crystal clear circumstances that stop the arrangement from remaining correctly enforced (Posting 8(5)). Listed here, a overseas court that is established to be the court acquiring jurisdiction as for each the parties’ arrangement is no extended expected to be “reasonably related” to the circumstance, as expected by court docket precedents.
-
Jurisdiction by pleading (Report 9) If a defendant pleads as to the deserves of a circumstance ahead of a Korean court with no asserting the lack of intercontinental jurisdiction, or pleads at the pre-listening to assembly, the Korean court is to have intercontinental jurisdiction around the situation.
-
Special jurisdiction (Post 10) Any lawsuit is required to be filed with a Korean court docket if it is related to: a) registration in official guides of Korea (other than for a lawsuit for the transfer or other disposal under an settlement between get-togethers where the registration is sought) b) invalidity of incorporation of, dissolution of, or validity or invalidity of a resolution of, a company or an entity included in accordance with Korean legal guidelines and restrictions c) authentic rights in a real estate situated in Korea or any appropriate intended for the use of a authentic estate and registered in official books d) the presence, validity or expiry of any intellectual house suitable established by registration or entrustment, if beforehand registered or at the moment applied for registration in Korea or e) the enforcement of a continuing, if meant to be enforced in Korea.
III. New Articles Relating to International Parallel Proceedings, Non-exercise of Worldwide Jurisdiction, and Preservative Evaluate
A. Worldwide parallel proceedings (Article 11)
With respect to global parallel proceedings, the amended PIL normally takes a stance that is a combination of the precedence concept respecting preceding proceedings, the approval prediction rule, and the “discussion board non conveniens” doctrine. That is, in the occasion that the events are disputing a particular topic make a difference right before a overseas court docket and the very same functions file a lawsuit ahead of the Korean court docket involving the exact same matter issue, the court docket can come to a decision to continue to be the proceedings ex officio or upon both party’s ask for (Post 11(1)). This will not implement, on the other hand, if the Korean courtroom has intercontinental jurisdiction in accordance with an arrangement on exclusive international jurisdiction involving the events or if it is unquestionably a lot more suitable for the circumstance to be attempted by a Korean courtroom than by a foreign court docket.
During the stay of proceedings, if the foreign courtroom fails to take any essential actions to check out the deserves, or fails or is predicted to are unsuccessful to commence a demo on the merits within just a sensible period of time of time, a Korean court can resume, on ask for from both social gathering, the proceedings that have been suspended, as provided in Posting 11(1) (Article 11(4)).
If a overseas demo is underneath way that meets the necessities for acceptance beneath Korean guidelines or a treaty, the court docket ought to reject a lawsuit that has been submitted right before the court by the exact same parties involving the exact same subject matter (Report 11(3)).
B. Non-exercising of global jurisdiction (Article 12)
The amended PIL adopts the forum non conveniens doctrine below Frequent law in a confined scope to enable a Korean courtroom to make a decision to suspend proceedings till the initially listening to date or the pre-listening to assembly day or reject a lawsuit even if i) the Korean court has intercontinental jurisdiction if ii) it is inappropriate for the Korean court docket to exercising its global jurisdiction, iii) if fantastic situations evidently suggest that it is more suitable for a international court docket having international jurisdiction to hear the issue, iv) on the defendant’s ask for, and v) until the court docket has global jurisdiction agreed in between the events (jurisdiction by agreement).
C. Jurisdiction over preservative measure (Post 14)
The Korean courtroom has global jurisdiction in excess of such preservative evaluate if i) a Korean court has global jurisdiction on the deserves and ii) assets topic to a preservative measure is located in Korea.
IV. New Provisions With regards to Particular Jurisdiction In excess of Lawsuits With regards to Intellectual Residence Right, Agreement, Customer Deal, and Tort
A. Particular jurisdiction above lawsuit involving a contract relating to intellectual house suitable and infringement thereof (Articles or blog posts 38 and 39)
Below the amended PIL, a Korean court docket has intercontinental jurisdiction above any lawsuit relating to the assignment, institution of a security desire, license or other contractual matters involving mental residence ideal, if i) the intellectual home correct is secured, applied or exercised in Korea or ii) any appropriate or desire in intellectual property right is registered in Korea.
Meanwhile, any lawsuit relating to mental house right infringement can be submitted with a Korean court docket, if i) the infringement was dedicated in Korea, ii) Korea is where the damages have happened, or iii) the infringement was dedicated toward Korea. In these kinds of circumstance, the jurisdiction is restricted to instances of harm happening in Korea, but if the infringement happened principally in Korea, a lawsuit can be submitted with a Korean court docket even if it relates to all injury arising from the infringement, including any consequence taking place overseas.
B. Particular jurisdiction around lawsuit relating to a agreement (Short article 41)
The amended PIL addresses jurisdiction around the position of efficiency, which has been controversial. That is, a lawsuit pertaining to a offer agreement can be filed with a Korean courtroom, if the put where by products had been shipped is Korea. As to a company arrangement, a lawsuit can be filed just before a Korean courtroom if the put wherever the service was presented is Korea. In the celebration that the agreement involves numerous locations of efficiency, a Korean court docket has jurisdiction if just one of the places exactly where a principal portion of obligation was performed is Korea (Posting 41(1)).
A lawsuit relating to an arrangement other than a source settlement or a service settlement can be submitted with a Korean courtroom if the location where the obligation which served as a basis for a assert was executed or the position where by the functions to the arrangement have agreed the obligation really should be executed is positioned in Korea (Posting 41(2)). Appropriately, opposite to the Supreme Court docket Judgment 72Da248 dated April 20, 1972, which approved intercontinental jurisdiction on the foundation of the area exactly where an obligation was carried out, a Korean court is now not deemed to have global jurisdiction only due to the fact the put of efficiency pursuant to the deal is Korea, if the functions have not agreed to the area where the obligation ought to be carried out for any agreement other than a offer settlement or a support agreement.
C. Specific jurisdiction around buyer agreement (Posts 42 & 43)
The amended PIL now sets forth distinctive jurisdiction over consumer contracts and work agreements (Content 42 & 43).
D. Exclusive jurisdiction over lawsuit with regards to tort (Post 44)
Report 44 of the amended PIL permits a lawsuit about tort to be filed with a Korean courtroom if the tort was fully commited in or towards Korea or if the damages have transpired in Korea, indicating that equally the place of an motion and the put of the damage can serve as a basis for jurisdiction. Even exactly where the tort was committed towards Korea, a Korean court is considered to have jurisdiction. Having said that, a Korean courtroom does not have intercontinental jurisdiction if it was not foreseeable that the damages would occur in Korea.
In the meantime, like the provision dealing with the jurisdiction, the governing legislation more than a tort is now the law of the position of an action or the place where by the damages happened (Post 52(1)).
V. Implications and Prospective clients
This in depth modification to the Personal International Regulation final results in comprehensive adjustments, including 35 new article content relating to global jurisdiction, in contrast to a former solitary provision that dealt with the similar. As a consequence, the existence of the intercontinental jurisdiction, which has been hard to predict right up until the courtroom rendered its judgment, is now extremely predictable, owing to the reasonably thorough provisions that have been freshly introduced. In addition, the confined incorporation of the forum non conveniens doctrine beneath Popular law delivers about propriety and soundness, and the new gadget is in place to prevent abuse of jurisdiction. It is important for any celebration to a lawsuit, possibly a plaintiff or a defendant, prior to a Korean court docket to be properly aware the alterations that have been enacted.
