일본법원의 국제재판관할권에 관하여 －2011년 개정민사소송법을 중심으로－

The general rules of international jurisdiction as the case law have been deduced the venue from the internal jurisdiction under the “special circumstances consideration.” It has been criticized that this kind of deduction might be result in an expansion of international jurisdiction. New rules on international jurisdiction were regulated in the Code of Civil Procedure in 2011. These regulations have been basically grounded on the case law with the reference to foreign rules. New rules provide in concrete and clearly for jurisdiction by the domicile of defendant, etc.(Article 3－2), jurisdiction over an action relating to an obligation under a contract, etc.(Article 3－3), jurisdiction over actions relating to consumer contract and labor relationship(Article 3－4), exclusive jurisdiction(Article 3－5), jurisdiction over joint claim(Article 3－6), agreement on jurisdiction(Article 3－7), jurisdiction by appearance(Article 3－8), dismissal of action on account of special circumstances(Article 3－9), exclusion of application in case of exclusive jurisdiction(Article 3－10). To prevent exorbitant jurisdiction, new rules regulate also the exception of the extremely low value of the seizable property(Article 3－3, Item (3)), the harmfulness normally unforeseeable under the circumstances(Article 3－3, Item (8)) and so on. A business transaction carried out continuously in Japan consists of a subject of venue (Article 3－3, Item (5)). Although it seems to be similar to doing business, it is not a general jurisdiction. Litigations were abandoned in legislative process. Exclusive jurisdiction is limited in actions relating to a registration and actions relating to the existence or non-existence or the validity of intellectual property rights, etc. New Rules are unilateral provision, in the exception of an agreement to effect that an action can be exclusively field with a foreign court. The advance agreement on jurisdiction concerning consumer contract and labor relationship shall not be effective in principle with some exception. Although the court has general venue in Japan, it has with the power to dismiss actions in “special circumstances” with one clear exception : this will not apply when an action is filed with a Japanese court in accordance with an agreement between the parties that Japanese courts shall have exclusively jurisdiction over such claim(Article 3－9). This “special circumstances” provision must be characterized in narrow comparing to the “special circumstances consideration” in the case law and should be prudently applied by the court for the legal stability and predictability. “Special circumstances” are meaningful in relations to not only direction jurisdiction but also indirect one. We will see how it can function in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.