국제사법 제2조상의 국제재판관할 관련 우리나라 판례의 검토

International jurisdiction depends on what court of specific country as a whole should try legal contestation or what specific country as a whole responsibility for trial should be distributed to. When international private law was totally revised on April 7, 2001, the general principle of international jurisdiction out of international private law (article 2) was newly established transitionally. Although it was regulations in a general form of ‘substantial connection’, it will be an important ground to judge international jurisdiction in the future Although the parties to a suit may not be secured predictability or legal stability because of the abstract standard of ‘substantial connection’ in international private law (article2), it is expected that a distinct standard will appear since cases are being created reflecting revised contents after revising international private law. More distinct trend will be disclosed through more accumulated cases in the future. However, Cases in the present have become a trend which judges international jurisdiction in proper application of indications such as ‘ideals of allocation in international jurisdiction’, ‘jurisdiction of domestic law’ and ‘uniqueness of international jurisdiction’ suggested in international private law (article 2) including the indication of ‘substantial connection’. At least, it is being escaped from a trend which judges international jurisdiction in the category of regulations and sound reasoning in land jurisdiction as the past cases. International private law (article 2) is not simple reflection of the existing cases of Supreme Court. In international private law (article 2), a new standard of judgment is established. However, Supreme Court from the above regulation is still in the process of setting up its position. As partial cases are seen, an attitude of inclusive judgment after arranging conditions without establishment of reasonable logic by being inclined to only the abstract standard of substantial connection should be sublated. In the future, inclusive cases integrating laws, regulations and theories in the present in the position of Supreme Court should be created. Based on relatively distinct cases as above, it is expected that the parties to a suit including practical officers will have predictability in instituting a lawsuit. In addition, it is necessary to watch over in what direction international treaty and legislation and international jurisdiction related cases of major countries including South Korea are developed in the side of comparative law to get more information for setting up Korean cases.