韓國 國際裁判管轄法에 있어 合意管轄, 辯論管轄, 專屬管轄, 反訴管轄

The author's legislative proposals on Korean law of agreement jurisdiction, appearance jurisdiction, exclusive jurisdiction and jurisdiction over counterclaim are as follows. First, it is necessary to create a provision on agreement jurisdiction in the law of international jurisdiction. In drafting the statutory language, the following considerations should be taken into account: first, balance between predictability and possibility of abuse by way of general conditions of contract; second, compatibility with internal jurisdiction rules; third, compatibility with the regulation of statutory jurisdiction; fourth, compatibility with the regulation of indirect jurisdiction ; fifth, compatibility with the regulation of arbitration agreement and Hague Choice-of-Court Convention.. Second, it is also desirable to explicitly provide for appearance jurisdiction in international adjudicatory jurisdiction. Third, it is highly necessary to create an explicit provision on exlcusive jurisdiction and thereby secure legal predictability. It appears more desirable to follow the examples of Hague Preliminary Draft and the Brussels Regulation rather than the revised Japanese Civil Procedure Law. Fourth, it is desirable to create an explicit provision on jurisdiction over counterclaim in the following way. In principle, jurisdiction should be admitted over a counterclaim that arises out of the transaction or event that forms the basis of the main claim. But jurisdiction over counterclaim should also be admitted where there is a substantial connection. However, it is too early to create a specific provision on jurisdiction over set-off.