본문 바로가기
  • Home

A Review of Korean Cases Related to International Jurisdiction Agreements

  • DONG-A LAW REVIEW
  • 2011, (50), pp.323-350
  • Publisher : The Institute for Legal Studies Dong-A University
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law

Choi Sung Soo 1

1동아대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

Determination of jurisdiction is the premise of the trial. As with domestic affairs, international jurisdiction agreements is recognized. The usefulness of international jurisdiction agreements, especially, can be found in the exclusion of uncertainty on international jurisdiction and governing law, adjustment of inflexible jurisdiction rule according to general norm. Even though the general point of issue in international jurisdiction in international transaction is solved considerably by jurisdiction agreement, the international jurisdiction agreements among concerning parties is not always considered valid. It is one of issues to determine in which cases the international jurisdiction agreements is valid. Depending on filing status, it can be different, there is no substantive enactment but only theory and precedent regarding this in private international law in Korea. Korean court tries to excessively accomplish the essential condition of the validity of international jurisdiction agreement. Jurisdiction agreement is valid reflecting parties' autonomy and should be corrected in the valid direction unless there is misuse of jurisdiction agreement because it is the matter of procedure convenience, not the matter of substantial justice. In this regard, the matter of reasonable connection needs to be reviewed as claimed in existing theory and it can be settled through the legislative method or joining in related international agreement. Even before this, Supreme Court needs to consider the change of precedent regarding the details of reasonable connection reviewing academic criticism.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.