국제대출계약의 재판관할선택에 관한 연구

English law and New York law enjoy a dominant position as the governing law of international loan contracts. In conjunction with the governing law, English and New York courts have usually been chosen as a forum. On the one hand, English and New York courts have given validity of freedom of choice of the governing law. On the other hand, they treat a submission to the jurisdiction clause different from the choice of law clause. Unlike the choice of law clause, both English and New York courts recognize the effect of the jurisdiction clause in a few limited circumstances according to jurisdiction rules of the private international law. This article studies international jurisdiction rules of England and New York. Based on findings, it analyzes the related cases of Korea and suggests improving Korean international jurisdiction rules. First of all, the civil jurisdiction of English courts depends on two exclusive regimes, residing respectively in the rules of national law and those provided by the Brussels regime. The Brussels I Regulation(recast) regulates proceedings instituted in England after 10 January 2015. Where the Brussels I Regulation(recast) is not applicable, the rules of English national law would be applicable. The American legal system includes both state courts and federal courts. State courts hear cases involving state law and federal laws. Federal courts may only hear cases where federal jurisdiction can be established. In the meantime, Korean courts are criticized for strictly applied ‘reasonable relation’ requirement between the foreign court and the case. However, the Brussels I Regulation(recast) recognizes the jurisdiction clause in a few limited circumstances. Where there is a jurisdiction clause, English and New York courts would not recognize the full effect of the jurisdiction clause. Therefore, Korean courts’ stance is not inconsistent because they have required the compliance of the public policy of the forum as well as the reasonable connection between the case and the chosen foreign court. In the future, where Korea joins multilateral treaties such as the Hague Convention on Choice of Courts Agreement, there would be not only mutual trust but also congruent recognition and enforcement among contracting states. In addition, where Korean international jurisdiction rules harmonize with international jurisdiction rules, it would ensure the foreseeability of parties in the international trade.