Qingdao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province of the People's Republic of China
中華人民共和國山東省青島市中級人民法院
Civil Ruling
民事裁定書
(2018) Lu 02 Xie Wai Ren No.6
（2018）魯02協(xié)外認6號
Applicant: CHOIJONGWON, male, born on December 25, 1967, South Korean, place of domicile: South Korea
申請人:崔綜元（CHOIJONGWON）（曾用名：崔康律），男，1967年12月25日出生，韓國國籍，住所地：大韓民國。
Attorneys: Piao Yuchuan, lawyer of Shandong Senrong Law Office.
委托訴訟代理人：樸玉川，山東森嶸律師事務所律師 。
Wang Li, apprentice lawyer of Shandong Senrong Law Office.
委托訴訟代理人: 王力，山東森嶸律師事務所實習律師。
Respondent: YOONJIYOUNG, female, born on February 6, 1974, South Korean, place of residence in China: Shinan District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
被申請人: 尹智映（YOONJIYOUNG），女，1974年2月6日出生，韓國國籍，住所地：大韓民國。
Translators: Cao Yajie, female, born on February 14, 1985, place of residence: Shinan District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
翻譯人員：曹雅杰，女，1985年2月14日出生，漢族，住中華人民共和國山東省青島市市南區(qū)。
HYUN BONA, female, born on May 1, 1984, South Korean, place of residence: No. 2, Haiqing Road, Laoshan District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
翻譯人員：玄寶納（HYUNBONA），女，1984年5月1日出生，韓國國籍，中國居所地：中華人民共和國山東省青島市嶗山區(qū)海青路2號。
Attorneys: Wang Lei, lawyer of Shandong Bairui Law Office.
委托訴訟代理人：王磊，山東柏瑞律師事務所律師。
Attorneys: Guo Wenwen, apprentice lawyer of Shandong Bairui Law Office.
委托訴訟省理人：郭雯文，山東柏瑞律師事務所實習律師。
The case of application for recognition and enforcement of the civil judgment "2017 GADAN No.15740" (2017甲單15740號) issued by Suwon District Court of South Korea, was docketed by the Court on 15 October 2018. The Court formed a collegial panel according to law to review the case and organized the parties concerned to make inquiries. This case is decided and closed now.
申請人崔綜元（CHOIJONGWON）申請承認和執(zhí)行韓國水原地方法院2017甲單15740號民事判決一案，本院于2018年10月15日立案。本院依法組成合議庭進行了審查，組織當事人進行了詢問，現已審查終結。
The applicant claims that the respondent borrowed 80 million Korean won from him on 6 January 2009. Thereafter, the applicant sued in Suwon District Court of South Korea in 2017. On 20 July 2017, Suwon District Court of South Korea made a judgment, ordering the respondent to pay 80 million Korean won and the interest calculated at the annual interest rate of 15% to the applicant from 17 June 2017 to the date of full payment. Due to the facts that the respondent has resided for a long time in Chengyang District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, the People's Republic of China, and that the majority of the property of the respondent are all located in China, the applicant hereby applies to the Court for recognition and enforcement of the judgment "2017 GADAN No.15740" made by Suwon District Court of South Korea on 20 July 2017 in accordance with relevant laws and regulations of the People's Republic of China.
申請人稱，2009年1月6日，被申請人向申請人借款8000萬韓元，后申請人于2017年在韓國水原地方法院起訴，2017年7月20日韓國水原地方法院作出判決，判令被申請人向申請人支付 8000 萬韓元及自2017年6月17日起至全部款項還清日止按年利率15%計算的利息。因被申請人長期居留在中華人民共和國山東省青島市城陽區(qū)，且被申請人的主要財產均在中國，現申請人依據中華人民共和國相關法律規(guī)定向法院中請承認并執(zhí)行韓國水原地方法院于2017年7月20日作出的2017甲單(GADAN)15740號判決。
The respondent states that she does not recognize the facts and reasons claimed by the applicant. The 80 million Korean won was involved in the criminal proceedings of both parties in 2009, when it was identified as investment funds. She does not agree to regard the 80 million yuan as borrowed funds and therefore does not recognize the judgment. She has no knowledge of the South Korean judgment involved in the case. Knowing that she was in China, the applicant intentionally concealed it from the South Korean court, causing the South Korean court to make a default judgment when she did not appear in court. The procedure was illegal. In addition, the judicial system of South Korea sets the third instance as the final, and the respondent has contacted South Korean lawyers to initiate relief measures in the case. The respondent has no fixed residence in Qingdao and has no property available for execution. So Qingdao courts have no jurisdiction over this case. Shenyang Intermediate People's Court of Liaoning Province of the People's Republic of China, ruled in 2015 not to recognize the South Korean court's judgment, so the principle of reciprocity is not applicable to China and South Korea. Therefore, the application of the applicant should be rejected in this case.
被申請人陳述意見稱，不承認申請人主張的事實和理由。8000萬元韓幣是雙方在2009年的刑事訴訟中涉及的，當時刑事訴訟中認定為投資資金。不同意8000萬元韓幣是借款資金，不承認這份判決書。其對涉案的韓國判決不知情， 申請人在知道其在中國的情況下，故意隱瞞不告知韓國法院，致使韓國法院在其未到庭的情況下缺席判決，程序不合法，另外韓國的司法制度為三審終審制，被申請人已聯系韓國律師啟動該案的救濟措施。被申請人在青島無固定住所，也無可供執(zhí)行的財產，青島法院對此無管轄權。中華人民共和國遼寧省沈陽市中級人民法院在2015年作出了不予認可韓國法院判決的裁定，因此中韓兩國還不適用互惠關系原則，所以本案應當駁回申請人的申請。
After examination, it can be identified that Suwon District Court of South Korea made the judgment "2017 GADAN No.15740" on the borrowing case on 20 January 2017, ordering the respondent to pay 80 million Korean won and the interest calculated at the annual interest rate of 15% to the applicant from 17 June 2017 to the date of full payment and to bear the litigation costs. Master of Suwon District Court of South Korea confirmed that the judgment was served on the respondent on 28 July 2017 and was legally effective on 11 August 2017.
經審查認定，韓國水原地方法院干2017年1月20日作出2017甲單(GADAN)15740號借款案件判決，判令被申請人向申請人支付8000萬韓元及2017年6月17日起至償還為止按年利率15計算的利息，并判令訴訟費用由被申請人承擔。韓國水原地方法院主事樸圣俊確認，該判決于2017年7月28日送達被申請人尹智映，并于2017年8月11日發(fā)生法律效力。
Ten years ago, the respondent came to Chengyang District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, the People's Republic of China. Her family income is mainly from her husband's salary. She has no job or property in South Korea.
被申請人十年前來到中華人民共和國山東省青島市城陽區(qū)，家庭收入主要為其丈夫的工資，被申請人在韓國沒有職業(yè)， 沒有財產。
It was also found that Seoul District Court of South Korea made the judgment "1999 GAHE No.26523" (1999甲合26523號) on the case of payment by letter of credit on 5 November 1999. The judgment applied the principle of reciprocity to recognize the civil judgment "(1997) Weijing Zi Chu No.219" ((1997)濰經字初219號) issued by Weifang Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province of the People's Republic of China. The case was decided in accordance with the content of the effective judgment made by the Chinese court.
另查明， 韓國首爾地方法院于1999年 11 月 5日作出 1999甲合26523號信用證貨款案件判決書，該判決書適用互惠原則承認中華人民共和國山東省濰坊市中級人民法院作出的(1997)濰經字初219號民事判決書，依據我國該生效判決書內容對案件進行了裁判。
The Court believes that in accordance with Article 281 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, if a legally effective judgment or ruling made by a foreign court requires recognition and execution by a people's court of the People's Republic of China, the party concerned may directly apply for recognition and execution to the intermediate people's court with jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China. According to the facts identified by the Court, the respondent came to the People's Republic of China ten years ago and her habitual residence is located in Chengyang District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, the People's Republic of China. So the Court has jurisdiction over the case.
本院認為，根據《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》第二百八十一條之規(guī)定， 外國法院作出的發(fā)生法律效力的判決、裁定，需要中華人民共和國人民法院承認和執(zhí) 行的， 可以由當事人直接向中華人民共和國有管轄權的中級人民法院申請承認與執(zhí)行. 現申請人向本院提出申請承認與執(zhí)行涉案判決，根據本院查明事實 被中請人十年前即來到中華人民共和國，其經常居所地位于中華人民共和國山東省青島市城陽區(qū)，故本院對本案有管轄權。
Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China provides that, having received an application or a request for recognition and execution of a legally effective judgment or ruling of a foreign court, a people's court shall review such judgment or ruling pursuant to international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or in accordance with the principle of reciprocity. If, upon such review, the people's court considers that such judgment or ruling neither contradicts the basic principles of the law of the People's Republic of China nor violates state sovereignty, security and the public interest, it shall rule to recognize its effectiveness. If execution is necessary, it shall issue an order of execution, which shall be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Law. If such judgment or ruling contradicts the basic principles of the law of the People's Republic of China or violates state sovereignty, security or the public interest, the people's court shall refuse to recognize and execute the judgment or ruling.
《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》第二百八十二條規(guī)定，人民法院對申請或者請求承認和執(zhí)行的外國法院作出的發(fā)生法律效力的判決、裁定，依照中華人民共和國締結或者參加的國際條約，或者按照互惠原則進行審查后，認為不違反中華人民共和國法律的基本原則或者國家主權、安全、社會公共利益的，裁定承認其效力，需要執(zhí)行的，發(fā)出執(zhí)行令，依照本法的有關規(guī)定執(zhí)行。違反中華人民共和國法律的基本原則或者國家主權、安金、社會公共利益的，不予承認和執(zhí)行。
The civil judgment involved in the case was made by the South Korean court. China and South Korea have not concluded or jointly acceded to international treaties on mutual recognition and enforcement of effective judgment documents. The treaties on civil and commercial judicial assistance concluded between the two countries only stipulate recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore, whether the applicant's application in this case should be supported should be reviewed in accordance with the principle of reciprocity. Since the South Korean court has recognized a civil judgment of Weifang Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province in judicial practice, based on the principle of reciprocity, Chinese courts can recognize and enforce the civil judgment of South Korean court that meets the conditions. At the same time, the above judgment of Suwon District Court of South Korea was made on the loan relationship between the applicant and the respondent, recognition of which does not contradict the basic principles of our country's laws or violate state sovereignty, security and the public interest. Although the applicant claims not to have received the judgment in this case, the judgment states that the service method of the judgment is "service by publication" in accordance with the Civil Procedure Law of South Korea. The applicant also shows evidence issued by the South Korean court that the judgment has been served on the respondent and that the judgment had become legally effective. The evidence has been notarized, and has been cross-examined by the respondent, so the Court confirms its authenticity. Regarding the respondent's defense that the 80 million Korean won in the judgment was involved in the criminal proceedings in 2009 when it was identified as investment funds, and that she disagrees with the claim that the 80 million Korean won should be seen as borrowed funds, the Court believes that this case is to recognize and enforce the judgment or ruling of a foreign court, and the facts identified by the judgment of a foreign court and application of law are beyond the scope of the case's review.
涉案民事判決系韓國法院作出，我國與韓國之間并未締結或者共同參見關于相互承認和執(zhí)行生效裁判文書的國際條約，兩國之間締結的關于民事和商事司法協(xié)助的條約中僅規(guī)定了對仲裁裁決的承認和執(zhí)行，所以本案申請人的申請是否應于支持，應依據互惠關系原則進行審查。由于韓國法院曾在司法實踐中對我國山東省濰坊市中級人民法院的一份民事判決進行了承認，根據互惠原則，我國法院可以對符合條件的韓國法院的民事判決予以承認和執(zhí)行。同時，上述韓國水原地方法院的判決系對申請人與被申請人之間的借貸關系作出，承認該民事判決并不違反我國法律的基本原則或者國家主權、安全和社會公共利益。雖然本案中披申請人聲稱沒有收到過該判決書，但判決書中載明該判決的送達方式是依據韓國民事訴訟法進行的“公示送達”，申請人也出示了韓國法院出具的已經送達被申請人及判決已發(fā)生效力的證據，該證據經過公證認證，并經被申請人質證，對其真實性本院予以確。關于被申靖人抗辯稱判決書中所涉8000萬元韓幣是雙方在2009年刑事訴訟中渉及的，當時刑事訴訟中認定為投資資金，不同意8000萬元韓幣是借款資金的主張， 本院認為，本案為承認和執(zhí)行外國法院判決、裁定，關于外國法院判決認定的案件事實及法律適用不在本案審查的范圍之內.
In conclusion, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 281 and 282 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows:
綜上， 依照《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》第二百八十一條，第二百八十二條的規(guī)定，裁定如下：
Recognizing and enforcing the civil judgment "2017 GADAN No.15740" issued by Suwon District Court of South Korea.
承認和執(zhí)行韓國水原地方法院 2017甲單(GADAN)15740號民事判決。
The application fee, RMB￥100, shall be borne by the respondent.
案件申請費100元，由被申請人負擔。
Presiding Judge Wang Xiaoqiong
審判長王曉瓊
Judge Wang yingying
審判員王穎穎
Judge Yu Meng
審判員于夢
25 March 2009
二0九年三月二七五日
Law Clerk Qi Kang
書記員祁 康