Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Substantial connection as the test of international jurisdiction in family cases
Supreme Court, Oct. 28, 2021, 2019Meu15425 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 이혼및양육자지정
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does Article 2 of the Private International Law Act apply to family cases, how is 'substantial connection' judged in them, and may the fact that the defendant was duly served with a copy of the complaint and appeared actively be counted positively towards jurisdiction for a Korean court?
Holding
Article 2 of the Private International Law Act applies to family cases. A Korean court has jurisdiction only where Korea has a substantial connection with the parties or with the matter in dispute, that is, a connection sufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction, judged by reasonable principles consistent with fairness of the parties and the proper, speedy and economical conduct of adjudication, and with special care for public values such as the maintenance of the family system and social order. Where the defendant was duly served with a copy of the complaint, raised no objection to venue, and actively appeared by submitting claims and evidence on the merits, that may be considered one positive factor in granting jurisdiction to a Korean court.
Points at issue, verbatim
국제사법 제2조가 가사사건에도 적용되는지 여부(적극) 및 가사사건에서 ‘실질적 관련의 유무’를 판단하는 기준 / 이때 피고가 소장 부본을 적법하게 송달받고 적극적으로 응소한 사정을 대한민국 법원에 관할권을 인정하는 데 긍정적으로 고려할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether Article 2 of the Act on Private International Law also applies to family cases (affirmative), and the criteria for determining 'the existence of a substantial connection' in family cases / Whether, in this regard, the circumstances that the defendant was duly served with a copy of the complaint and actively appeared and responded to the action may be taken into account as a positive factor in recognizing the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of Korea (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘실질적 관련’이 있다는 것은 대한민국 법원이 재판관할권을 행사하는 것을 정당화할 정도로 당사자 또는 분쟁이 된 사안과 관련성이 있는 것을 뜻한다.
Unofficial English translation
The existence of a 'substantial connection' means that the parties or the matter in dispute is connected to such an extent as to justify the courts of the Republic of Korea exercising judicial jurisdiction.
Factors
- 국제사법 제2조가 가사사건에도 적용되는지 여부(적극)
- 가사사건에서 ‘실질적 관련의 유무’를 판단하는 기준
- 이때 피고가 소장 부본을 적법하게 송달받고 적극적으로 응소한 사정을 대한민국 법원에 관할권을 인정하는 데 긍정적으로 고려할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• Whether Article 2 of the Act on Private International Law also applies to family cases (affirmative)
• The criteria for determining 'the existence of a substantial connection' in family cases
• Whether, in this regard, the circumstances that the defendant was duly served with a copy of the complaint and actively appeared and responded to the action may be taken into account as a positive factor in recognizing the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of Korea (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 1. 27. 선고 2002다59788 판결, 대법원 2019. 6. 13. 선고 2016다33752 판결, 대법원 2021. 2. 4. 선고 2017므12552 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59788 decided January 27, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2016Da33752 decided June 13, 2019, Supreme Court Decision 2017Meu12552 decided February 4, 2021.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2005. 1. 27. 선고 2002다59788 판결(공2005상, 294), 대법원 2019. 6. 13. 선고 2016다33752 판결(공2019하, 1357), 대법원 2021. 2. 4. 선고 2017므12552 판결(공2021상, 512)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much weight does a defendant's active appearance carry towards jurisdiction where the parties and the dispute have no other connection with Korea?
The retrial judgment of the Daejeon High Court on remand will show how the substantial connection test was applied to these facts and which law was held to govern. A later Supreme Court decision qualifying when appearance counts as a positive factor, or an amendment to Article 2 or Article 9(1) of the Private International Law Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 2 (holding), axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 2 (Holding): Primary “Article 2 of the Private International Law Act applies to family cases. A Korean court has jurisdiction only where Korea has a substantial connection with the parties or with the matter in dispute, that is, a connection sufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction, judged by reasonable principles consistent with fairness of the parties and the proper, speedy and economical conduct of adjudication, and with special care for public values such as the maintenance of the family system and social order. Where the defendant was duly served with a copy of the complaint, raised no objection to venue, and actively appeared by submitting claims and evidence on the merits, that may be considered one positive factor in granting jurisdiction to a Korean court.” vs Independent “Article 2 of the Private International Law Act applies to family cases, requiring a reasonable assessment of substantial connection that considers fairness, proper and efficient adjudication, and public interests concerning family institutions and social order. Proper service followed by active participation on the merits without a jurisdictional objection may support jurisdiction, and the circumstances here sufficiently established substantial connection with Korea.”
Both agree on the general rule and treat active appearance as a positive factor. The independent reading also finds substantial connection sufficiently established on these facts, a case-specific conclusion the primary does not state.
국제사법 제2조가 가사사건에도 적용되는지 여부(적극) 및 가사사건에서 ‘실질적 관련의 유무’를 판단하는 기준 / 이때 피고가 소장 부본을 적법하게 송달받고 적극적으로 응소한 사정을 대한민국 법원에 관할권을 인정하는 데 긍정적으로 고려할 수 있는지 여부(적극)Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
The primary states the standard as requirements to be satisfied, while the independent reading weighs the relevant circumstances together, so the two differ in the form of the standard.
가사사건에서 ‘실질적 관련의 유무’를 판단하는 기준Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How much weight does a defendant's active appearance carry towards jurisdiction where the parties and the dispute have no other connection with Korea?” vs Independent “Will renvoi make Korean civil law the governing law after remand?”
The primary asks how much weight active appearance carries when there is no other connection with Korea. The independent asks whether renvoi would make Korean civil law the governing law after remand.
국제사법 제2조가 가사사건에도 적용되는지 여부(적극) 및 가사사건에서 ‘실질적 관련의 유무’를 판단하는 기준 / 이때 피고가 소장 부본을 적법하게 송달받고 적극적으로 응소한 사정을 대한민국 법원에 관할권을 인정하는 데 긍정적으로 고려할 수 있는지 여부(적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon High Court, in its judgment of 10 October 2019 (2018Reu1366), held that the parties or the matter in dispute had no substantial connection with Korea and denied the international jurisdiction of the Korean courts on the grounds set out in that judgment. Before it, the first-instance court had completed a merits hearing and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The decision does not set out the specific reasons the court below gave for finding no substantial connection beyond referring to the grounds it had stated.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on international jurisdiction and had failed to make the necessary examination, an error affecting its judgment. Set against the law it stated, the record showed a substantial connection: the Korean-national defendant and the plaintiff registered their marriage in Korea, the child was born and registered in Korea, the defendant's mother and sister live in Korea and the defendant and child are registered at that address, the defendant enters Korea several times a year, the foreign plaintiff sued in Korea of its own accord, and the defendant was duly served, contested the claim through counsel, appeared at most hearings, never pleaded lack of jurisdiction and even filed a counterclaim for divorce. The Justices unanimously reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Daejeon High Court, adding that the Korean Civil Code as lex fori might become the governing law under Article 9(1) of the Private International Law Act and that this should be taken into account on remand.
Distinguishing conditions
- A family case in which neither the parties nor the matter in dispute has any connection with Korea sufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction by a Korean court.
- A case in which the defendant, after being served, raises an objection to venue instead of submitting claims and evidence on the merits, since the appearance counted here was an appearance without such an objection.
- A case in which the plaintiff did not choose a Korean court, since the Court relied on the foreign plaintiff's own decision to sue in Korea despite geographical and linguistic disadvantage.
Record verification notes
Gather what the record shows on each connection the Court listed, separately for the parties and for the disputed matter: marriage and birth registrations in Korea, the registered address and the family living there, the defendant's entries into Korea, who chose the forum, and how the defendant behaved after service, including any jurisdiction objection and any counterclaim. Then check whether both sides could collect and submit evidence without difficulty, since the Court relied on the absence of such difficulty. On remand, also settle which law governs, as the Court flagged that the Korean Civil Code may apply under Article 9(1) of the Private International Law Act.
From the official text
Points at issue
국제사법 제2조가 가사사건에도 적용되는지 여부(적극) 및 가사사건에서 ‘실질적 관련의 유무’를 판단하는 기준 / 이때 피고가 소장 부본을 적법하게 송달받고 적극적으로 응소한 사정을 대한민국 법원에 관할권을 인정하는 데 긍정적으로 고려할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether Article 2 of the Act on Private International Law also applies to family cases (affirmative), and the criteria for determining 'the existence of a substantial connection' in family cases / Whether, in this regard, the circumstances that the defendant was duly served with a copy of the complaint and actively appeared and responded to the action may be taken into account as a positive factor in recognizing the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of Korea (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Provisions referred to
국제사법 제2조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger