국제재판관할합의의 위반과 손해배상책임

As with the choice-of-court agreement under our Civil Procedure Act, an agreement can be reached with respect to the jurisdiction of international cases. The agreement of jurisdiction in international transactions is very important because in the case of international trials, the matter of jurisdiction has a significant effect on the conclusion. Procedures vary from country to country, and the governing law can vary, which can result in enormous cost differences in terms of proceeding and the conclusion of litigation. If there is a valid exclusive jurisdiction agreement and a lawsuit has been filed against the agreement, it may be problematic whether damages can be filed on the grounds of violation of that agreement. In the past, the prevailing view was that the jurisdiction of international choice-of-court agreement had only procedural effect. However, the international choice-of-court agreement is clearly different from the other procdural act because it originates from agreements between parties outside the suit. From this agreement, we do not need to hesitate from admitting obligations under the substantive laws. Such discussions are thought to be quite ripe in the civil law system, although triggered in common law countries. From the substantive legal obligations of the agreement, we conclude that we can claim damages from the party who violates the agreement. Although claims for damages are possible, there are significant additional considerations. In fact, to determine how much money can be received as compensation, many factors must be considered. In the event of an actual dispute, it is likely that a deep review will be required regarding the validity of the provisions relating to damages or liquidated damages, and the extent to which the actual liability for compensation is recognized. I believe that a more scrutinized review of those considerations and confirmation of them in the actual case will be addressed in further research or practice.