국제항공운송사고에 기한 손해배상청구소송과 ‘부적절한 법정지의 법리’

International aviation, by its own nature, involves multiple states with different languages, customs, and legal systems. Accordingly it would be desirable to establish a certain degree of uniformity. The Warsaw Convention, and later the Montreal Convention were adopted to develop uniform law as to the procedure for dealing with claims arising out of international air transportations and to the substantive law applicable to such claims. With respect to the jurisdictional issue, both the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions appear to encourage forum shopping by providing multiple venues, thereby giving the plaintiff a wide choice. The United States seems to take this potential forum shopping rather seriously. The most fundamental concern for the U.S. courts might be the fear of being a target forum from foreign plaintiffs. The question of whether these Conventions allow the forum non conveniens doctrine to operate has been raised. When it comes to deciding whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens can be considered in a case arising under the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, the U.S. federal courts seems to have no doubt deciding that the forum non conveniens defense is compatible with the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions. The Cour de cassation, however, has markedly departed from the U.S. position when it had to decide whether Article 33 of the Montreal Convention authorizes French court, competent under the Convention but not chosen by the plaintiff, to adjudicate the dispute on the only ground that the U.S. courts designated it as a more appropriate venue. It affirmed the discretionary characteristic of the plaintiff’s right to exercise his forum selection option and decided that the French courts are “currently unavailable forum.” In fact, the U.S. courts could have avoided most of the forum non conveniens confrontations simply by restricting the application of the Convention to so-called “bad faith forum shopping” cases. In international aviation litigation, plaintiffs’ lawyers often include American defendants, such as an airline, airframe or engine manufacturer, component parts manufacturer, service provider, and sometimes even an aircraft lessor in the suit in an effort to persuade a U.S. court to accept jurisdiction. Where an airline is a defendant in a case involving international carriage, the Warsaw Convention or the Montreal Convention may apply. However, with regard to a negligence or products liability suit against a manufacturer of the airframe or its component parts, or against the air navigation or maintenance provider, these Conventions might not be relevant. Since the Montreal Convention provided no guideline as to what jurisdictional rules applied when there were multiple defendants, the U.S. courts can control those cases by simply restricting the application of the Convention. The amendments to the Private International Law of the Republic of Korea, which took effect on July 5, 2022, introduced the forum non conveniens doctrine to a limited extent. Since the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions were designed to establish uniformity in the aviation industry with regard to the procedure for dealing with claims arising out of international transportation, it would be desirable for courts not to rely on the forum non conveniens doctrine too easily when seized under the conventions. But when the case shows such a tenuous connection with the forum, the forum non conveniens doctrine could be considered as an effective countermeasure for the ‘bad faith forum shopping’.