민사소송법의 관할규정을 고려한 국제계약분쟁에서의 일반관할과 특별관할에 관한 연구

Article 2 of the International Private Law provides standards to determine international jurisdiction, but it is lack of predictability due to its abstract standards. In order to improve its predictability of international jurisdiction more exquisite standards are required. However, its predictability can be increased only through interpretation at the moment. This article, limited to international contracts, analysed general jurisdiction and special jurisdiction in international jurisdiction which can be deduced with reference to jurisdiction provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. General jurisdiction in international jurisdiction is determined based on dependant’s residence without regarding relationship between the dispute and the forum. The above dependants’s resident is not a domicile as a legal concept but the habitual residence as a factual concept in order to evade complex processes of determining governing law and determining the meaning of a domicile under the governing law and to secure actual dependant’s right to depend at the court proceedings. On the contrary special jurisdiction is recognized when there is a substantial relationship between the dispute and the forum. With regard to contracts, the places that a branch offices or an agency is situated can be recognized as special jurisdiction and the place that a subsidiary is situated can be recognized as special jurisdiction only when the subsidiary acts as a de facto branch office of its parent company or on behalf of the parent company. If assets are the purpose of a dispute the place that the assets are situated can be recognized as special jurisdiction. However, if the assets are only a target for enforcing monetary receivables the place of assets cannot be recognized as special jurisdiction due to lack of substantial relationship between the dispute and the place.