개정 국제사법상 선박 가압류관할 조항의 해석 및 향후 실무에 미칠 영향

With the comprehensive reform of the Conflict of Laws in 2022—long anticipated in both academic and professional circles—the so-called “New Conflict of Laws” regime came into force. Whereas the scope of international adjudicatory jurisdiction had previously been governed by Article 2 of the former Act, and its application left largely to judicial interpretation of the phrase “substantial connection with the Republic of Korea,” the revised legislation now establishes detailed provisions tailored to the nature of specific disputes. This development has spurred a growing body of academic and practical analysis. Among the newly introduced provisions, the most distinctive—and potentially contentious in terms of interpretative scope in practice—is Article 90, which sets out the so-called “ship arrest jurisdiction clause.” This provision is noteworthy for attempting to strike a compromise between the Korean ship arrest regime under the Civil Execution Act, rooted in the civil law tradition, and the conceptual framework of maritime claims as recognised in common law jurisdictions. In effect, this provision affords ship arrest a significance that transcends its traditional role as a mere preservative measure over assets, thereby providing enhanced protection to maritime claimants. It may be seen as establishing a broader institutional basis for such protection within Korea’s legal system. This article examines the emerging issues likely to arise under the newly codified ship arrest jurisdiction clause, with particular emphasis on the practical implications informed by previous practice and jurisprudence. The aim is to provide meaningful insights into how this jurisdictional basis may be invoked and interpreted in future maritime litigation.