International jurisdiction

International jurisdiction (국제재판관할/國際裁判管轄) deals with the issue whether a court or panel may adjudicate a specific case with more than two states involved in such a dispute.

In Korea, the Private International Act (국제사법/國際私法) regulate this issue. Article 2 of the Act provides for "substantial connection" as a general principle on international jurisdiction.

Key words
international jurisdiction, Private International Act, substantial connection, nature of things (Jori, 조리/條理), forum shopping

Theories on the International Jurisdiction
The Hague Conference and other international bodies have made recommendations on jurisdictional matters, but litigants with the encouragement of lawyers on a contingent fee are inclined to shop for forums. To deal with the issue of forum shopping, it is necessary to adopt positive rules on conflict of laws.

As stated in Article 2 of the Act, the court shall consider reasonable principles in the context of substantial connection, compatible to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction.

Until July 1, 2001 when the above wholly amended Private International Act came into force, there had been a number of theories as explained below with respect to the international jurisdiction at issue under the previous Act (섭외사법/涉外私法).
 * Theory of Reverse Inference (역추지설/逆推知說): A Korean court may have international jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute if it has territorial jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act which were originally legislated for intra-territorial application. The basis of international jurisdiction is reversely inferred from the analogy of provisions on domestic territorial jurisdiction, regardless of their appropriateness in light of internationality.
 * Modified Theory of Reverse Inference (수정추지설/修正逆推知說): This is more flexible theory of the original Theory of Reverse Inference, unless international jurisdiction of Korean courts constitutes the special circumstances in violation of the basic idea aiming at achieving impartiality between the parties, and appropriateness and speediness of litigation.
 * Theory of Venue Distribution (관할배분설/管轄配分說): The international jurisdictions shall be decided in consideration of how to properly distribute venues in terms of impartiality between the parties, and appropriateness and effectiveness of adjudication. This theory does not ignore the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act on domestic jurisdiction at all, but makes an analogy in the context of internationality.
 * Theory of Balancing Interests (이익형량설/利益衡量說): This theory concentrates on which competent jurisdiction has more interests in the case. It is mainly discussed in the United States and Japan.

Supreme Court cases
Under the previous Private International Act, the Supreme Court adopted the "three-step formula."

The non-Korean plaintiffs who had worked in the branch office in Korea established by the U.S. corporation filed a lawsuit for an unlawful discharge with a Korean court. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the Korean court lacked international jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, explaining the process of determining the international jurisdiction:
 * 1) There are no treaties, universally accepted principles of international law or statutory provisions of the Civil Procedure Act on international jurisdiction for cases involving a foreign element;
 * 2) Therefore, whether Korean courts may have international jurisdiction in cases involving a foreign element should be determined in accordance with the nature of things (Jori), based upon the basic ideas of fairness between parties, justice and speedy trial;
 * 3) As the provisions on distribution of domestic territorial jurisdiction to the local courts are also based on the above basic ideas, a Korean court has the international jurisdiction when the court has domestic territorial jurisdiction under the venue provision of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court became more articulate in its Decision 93Da39607 (Maryland Insurance v. Nau Precision) delivered on November 21, 1995.

Nau Precision Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Nau") is a manufacturer-vendor of cellular phones, and supplies its products to department stores across the United States via Metz Consumers Electric Co. (hereinafter "Metz") headquartered in Florida. A few consumers living in Florida filed a lawsuit with a Dade County court against Metz alleging that they sustained some damages arising out of the defects of the Nau cellular phones bought at a Federate shopping center in Miami. In turn, Metz filed a third party practice against Naw seeking for contribution or indemnification. After receiving summons and complaint, Nau filed its motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction and did not appear before the filing court.

At last, as Maryland Insurance, insurer for product liability damages incurred to Metz, settled the claim with the consumers on behalf of Metz, the claim of Metz against Nau was assigned to Maryland Insurance Co. Under Florida law, Maryland Insurance continued the proceedings in the name of Metz to obtain a judgment on the claim against Nau. In the end, the Florida state court entered a default judgment against Nau, who was ordered to indemnify the damages sustained by Metz to Maryland Insurance. Maryland Insurance sought recognition of this judgment in the Korean court.

Under these factual circumstances, the Supreme Court denied the request for recognition of Florida judgment on the ground that the Florida state court did not have jurisdiction in the international sense under the Korean law. It held that:
 * Whether the foreign rendering court sitting in the place of damages sustained has jurisdiction in the international sense over a product liability suit concerning the legal liability or obligation of a manufacturer as a tortfeasor is decided within the constraints of nature of things. Most determinative factor is such substantial connection between the manufacturer and the place of damages sustained that it may reasonably anticipate being pulled into a suit to be filed with the foreign rendering court.
 * Considered in determining the presence of substantial connection are the purposeful acts and intents to benefit from the transactions conducted within the place of damages sustained, such as designing or advertising the products for the market of the place of damages sustained, the regular counseling for customers in there, and establishing the sales agents network.
 * Because Nau had, since 1981, sold its cellular phones a few times to Metz with no office established or maintained in Florida, any substantial connection between the defendent and the forum state, which leads to reasonable foreseeability that Nau might be sued at a Florida court for product liability damages, could not be inferred from the above-mentioned facts.

In 2007, although a lower court case, there appeared a noteworty case on the international jurisdiction. Busan District Court ruled on the international jurisdiction of forced labor victims' claims for compensation under the Japanese colonial rule.

In 2013, the Supreme Court repeated its previous decisions on the international jurisdiction in the long-awaited Agent Orange case.

Criteria of Substantial Connection
See the Substantial connection.