지적재산권에 관한 외국재판의 승인 및 집행에 대한 연구

According to Article 217 of Korean Civil Procedure, a foreign judgment will be recognized if the following requirements are met: (i) that the foreign court is deemed to have an international jurisdiction over the case, based on Korean legislation and international treaties; (ii) that service of process was made to the losing defendant by a lawful method while giving him enough time to defend; (iii) that the recognition of the foreign judgment does not violate the Korean public policy; and (iv) that a judgment from the court of a foreign state may not be recognized if such foreign state does not recognize Korean judgments. First, what can be the subject-matter of the recognition of foreign judgment need to be discussed. In this regard, the foreign adjudication, whether judgment or order, must be related to civil or commercial matters so that it can be the subject-matter of the recognition of foreign judgment pursuant to Article 217 of Korean Civil Procedure. Also, it must be final and conclusive. In addition, Korean civil procedural law does not follow the differentiation that exists under U.S. law between remedies at law and remedies in equity and thus does not consider injunctions to be more discretionary in nature than are money awards. Therefore, a Korean court would not normally approach the enforceability of an injunction granted by a foreign court in a fundamentally different manner than a money award, except for the practical obstacles disfavoring the enforcement of injunctions and further except that through the reciprocity requirement, Korean legal system denies enforceability of the foreign injunctions because the foreign courts will not normally enforce injunctions granted by Korean courts. As far as decisions rendered by a foreign administrative agency in terms of intellectual property(hereinafter referred to as IP) disputes are concerned, I think they need to be recognized if the adversary in IP disputes is a private individual. Second, in terms of international jurisdiction in IP disputes, exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive choice of a court agreement are explored. At least, the disputes related to validity of industrial property rights should fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in the State where the rights were registered. Third, the foreign judgments should not violate international public policy standards. The international pubic policy can be divided into substantive and procedural one. In order for a Korean court to refuse the recognition of a foreign judgment due to the violation of public policy, the case at bar before the Korean court must be related to Korea. In this regard, Korean courts will recognize punitive or exemplary damages rendered by the U.S. courts in civil matters to the extent that it serves as a compensatory method. Fourth, as far as reciprocity is concerned, it should be noted that Korean courts will hesitate to recognize the U.S. injunctions since neither federal statutes nor uniform state law in America expressly command the enforcement of equitable relief granted by foreign court. Finally, this Article delves into the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards related to intellectual property rights.