All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2010Da28185 Decided August 26, 2010 [Damages] [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| [1] Criteria to establish the validity of an agreement for exclusive international jurisdiction when it designates a foreign court as the competent court while excluding jurisdiction of Korean courts [2] Whether the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act can be applied to all contracts established with foreign laws as applicable law (negative) [3] In a case where a Korean company and a foreign company established a contract for the Korean company to serve as distributor and sales agent for the foreign company's products within Korea and agreed upon foreign law as the applicable law for the contract, and that ""any of the parties can terminate the contract wholly upon its convenience and without any outstanding reason, by giving notice of their intention 60 days in advance,"" the holding to affirm the judgment of the court below, which found the agreement for applicable law to be valid as there are no grounds to view any obvious unreasonable or unfair results stemming from the above contract designating foreign law as its applicable law, and the above termination clause to be valid as well because the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act of Korea cannot be applied to the above contract established with foreign law as its applicable law [4] How to determine whether an act constitutes ""an act to disadvantage another party by abusing transactional position"" as defined by Article 36 (1) [Attached Table 1] sub-paragraph 6 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act [5] Criteria and standard to determine whether an act constitutes an act of unfairly refusing transaction as defined by Article 23 (1) 1 of the Fair Trade Act and Article 36 (1) [Attached Table 1] sub-paragraph 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of this Act [6] In a case where a foreign company entered into a contract with a Korean ... | |
