In a group action for consumer redress, which court has exclusive jurisdiction, and how is that place determined when the defendant is a foreign business?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
For this exercise, we read the complaint to see how the defendant is named and described, then the papers in the file that show where the defendant maintains its principal office or business office, or failing that the address of the person in charge of its main business. We also check whether the defendant is recorded as a foreign business, since that changes the way the place is found.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading takes the provision's exclusive grant at face value: a group action suit lies only with the collegial panel of the district court headquarters at the place of the defendant's principal office or business office, and where the defendant has neither, only with that collegial panel at the place of the domicile of the person in charge of its main business.
Another reading turns on the special rule for foreign businesses, which directs that the place be fixed 'by their principal office, business office or the address of the person in charge of business located in the Republic of Korea', so the provision looks only at what exists in Korea and does not say which court would be competent if a foreign business has no such office or person here at all.
Your judgment
If a foreign business defendant has no office and no person in charge of business in Korea, which court would the file have to show as competent, and on what basis?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We revisit this card if the provision is amended to address a foreign business with no presence in Korea, or if a court decision explains what counts as the principal office or business office for this purpose, or whether a branch without decision-making power suffices.