부적절한 법정지의 법리에 관한 대체적 법정지의 요건과 판결의 집행가능성 요소

Abstract

In a globalized world, business activities are becoming increasingly de-nationalized and with that cross-border disputes are also on the rise. Parties seeking to resolve international disputes through trial may have an incentive to engage in forum shopping, which is the practice of selecting a forum where they believe they are more likely to receive a favorable judgment. In response to such a complaint, the defendant may assert forum non conveniens as a defense. Under the forum non conveniens doctrine, the court may dismiss a claim if it would cause undue inconvenience to the defendant, even if the forum has jurisdiction. The forum non conveniens doctrine has been developed mainly in the common law system, but Korea also introduced the doctrine in 2022 with the comprehensive revision of the Private International Law Act jurisdiction rules and has adopted it to a limited extent in line with the civil law system. Article 12, which stipulates this doctrine, however, does not specify specific standards for applying the doctrine, leaving it open to interpretation. Therefore, focusing on the United States, which has accumulated precedent on the forum non conveniens doctrine, this paper examines what constitutes an alternative forum and what the factors are for the enforceability of the judgment. The forum non conveniens doctrine in the United States involves first, examining whether an alternative forum exists, and second, applying a balancing test that weighs private and public interest factors, and determine whether deference should be given to the plaintiff's chosen forum. The enforceability factor is one of the private interest factors, which is important for plaintiffs' access to justice and judicial economy. Accordingly this study examines how the forum non conveniens doctrine is interpreted and applied in the United States, and then examines the forum non conveniens doctrine in Korea.