• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.553-591
• /
• 2017

This article discussed whether so-called 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' is in breach of public policy provided in Article 217(1)(3) of Civil Procedure Act and, if so, what the specific requirements could be. The summary of the conclusion is as follows. The 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' is against the municipal procedural public policy and then shall not be recognized. In this regard one more question comes up whether reviewing if 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' is in breach of the municipal procedural public policy is allowed in consideration of the principle of prohibition of $r{\acute{e}}vision$ au fond. Since the principle is applied entirely in the course of the above reviewing, it is allowed only when it does not breach the principle. The two instances that the reviewing is allowed are where the defendant was not able to produce evidences of fraud during foreign procedures and where the defendant's claim of fraud without evidences was rejected by the foreign court and then evidences of fraud were found after the foreign procedure was completed. On the other hand, the specific requirements for 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' to be against public policy are following four requirements based on principle of strict interpretation of public policy. (1) plaintiff's intention to fraud, (2) preventing the defendant from being involved in the procedure by fraud or cheating the foreign court using manipulated evidences, (3) the defendant could not present himself in the foreign court procedure due to the plaintiff's extraneous fraud or the foreign court decided wrongly due to intrinsic fraud, and (4) defendant's fundamental procedural rights were breached to the extent that recognizing the effect of foreign judgments was against justice defendant's fundamental procedural rights. These results differ from the Supreme Court 2004. 10. 28. ruling 2002da74213 in many aspects. Most of all, in my opinion there is no need to distinguish between intrinsic fraud and extraneous fraud and reviewing 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' is not in conflict with the principle of prohibition of $r{\acute{e}}vision$ au fond but the both may coexist. In this regard I expect the variation of the Supreme Court's position and hope to contribute to academia and practitioners.