Validity of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause

Supreme Court Decision 200153349 Decided March 25, 2004 [Damages]

For an agreement of exclusive international jurisdiction to be valid when it designates the foreign court as the court of competent jurisdiction while excluding jurisdiction of a Korean court, the case in question must not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a Korean court, and the designated foreign court must possess jurisdiction over the case under the foreign law; in addition, the case in question must bear reasonable relevance to the foreign court. Except cases where the agreement for exclusive jurisdiction is obviously unreasonable and unfair to the extent of constituting a juristic act contrary to public order and good morals, the agreement of jurisdiction is valid.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal defense

Criminal Defense As a practice, we have successfully handled criminal cases involving murder, sex offences, embezzlement, and drug dealing. In addition, many years of experience as public prosecutors and criminal lawyers has allowed us to handle criminal cases involving the infringement of business or technological secrets, customs, foreign currency exchange, immigration, and the US forces. Our commitment to thorough analysis and the collection of detailed evidence and witness testimony, together with our professional collaboration with top specialists in the fields of forensic pathology and digital forensics, has resulted in a large number of our clients being proved innocent. Another important aspect of our work is procuring fines and suspended or minimum sentences in situations where a crime has been admitted to. We faithfully fulfill our duty to assist our clients by getting suspended sentences instead of imprisonment or fines so that they can continue to go about thei...
Read more

Prohibition of the Infringement on Trademark Rights, etc. 2018Da253444

 (A) The Trademark Act provides that in a case where one intellectual property (IP) right is in conflict with other IP right, the first-to-file right, or the earlier created right, is given priority over the other, and it is reasonable to assume that such rule invariably applies to a trademark conflict. Therefore, in a case where a trademark owner filed an application for registration of a trademark similar or identical to a prior applied and registered trademark before the filing date of the said trademark owner’s application for trademark registration (hereinafter “subsequent registered trademark”) and used the subsequent registered trademark, without authorization of the owner of a prior mark, on goods similar or identical to designated goods of the prior registered mark, an exclusive right to the use of the subsequent registered trademark is no longer exercisable, and an infringement on the prior registered mark is established without regard to whether a trial ruling that inval...
Read more