Qingdao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province of the People's Republic of China
中华人民共和国山东省青岛市中级人民法院
Civil Ruling
民事裁定书
(2018) Lu 02 Xie Wai Ren No.6
（2018）鲁02协外认6号
Applicant: CHOIJONGWON, male, born on December 25, 1967, South Korean, place of domicile: South Korea
申请人:崔综元（CHOIJONGWON）（曾用名：崔康律），男，1967年12月25日出生，韩国国籍，住所地：大韩民国。
Attorneys: Piao Yuchuan, lawyer of Shandong Senrong Law Office.
委托诉讼代理人：朴玉川，山东森嵘律师事务所律师 。
Wang Li, apprentice lawyer of Shandong Senrong Law Office.
委托诉讼代理人: 王力，山东森嵘律师事务所实习律师。
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.
被申请人: 尹智映（YOONJIYOUNG），女，1974年2月6日出生，韩国国籍，住所地：大韩民国。
Translators: Cao Yajie, female, born on February 14, 1985, place of residence: Shinan District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
翻译人员：曹雅杰，女，1985年2月14日出生，汉族，住中华人民共和国山东省青岛市市南区。
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.
翻译人员：玄宝纳（HYUNBONA），女，1984年5月1日出生，韩国国籍，中国居所地：中华人民共和国山东省青岛市崂山区海青路2号。
Attorneys: Wang Lei, lawyer of Shandong Bairui Law Office.
委托诉讼代理人：王磊，山东柏瑞律师事务所律师。
Attorneys: Guo Wenwen, apprentice lawyer of Shandong Bairui Law Office.
委托诉讼省理人：郭雯文，山东柏瑞律师事务所实习律师。
The case of application for recognition and enforcement of the civil judgment "2017 GADAN No.15740" (2017甲单15740号) 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.
申请人崔综元（CHOIJONGWON）申请承认和执行韩国水原地方法院2017甲单15740号民事判决一案，本院于2018年10月15日立案。本院依法组成合议庭进行了审查，组织当事人进行了询问，现已审查终结。
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.
申请人称，2009年1月6日，被申请人向申请人借款8000万韩元，后申请人于2017年在韩国水原地方法院起诉，2017年7月20日韩国水原地方法院作出判决，判令被申请人向申请人支付 8000 万韩元及自2017年6月17日起至全部款项还清日止按年利率15%计算的利息。因被申请人长期居留在中华人民共和国山东省青岛市城阳区，且被申请人的主要财产均在中国，现申请人依据中华人民共和国相关法律规定向法院中请承认并执行韩国水原地方法院于2017年7月20日作出的2017甲单(GADAN)15740号判决。
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.
被申请人陈述意见称，不承认申请人主张的事实和理由。8000万元韩币是双方在2009年的刑事诉讼中涉及的，当时刑事诉讼中认定为投资资金。不同意8000万元韩币是借款资金，不承认这份判决书。其对涉案的韩国判决不知情， 申请人在知道其在中国的情况下，故意隐瞒不告知韩国法院，致使韩国法院在其未到庭的情况下缺席判决，程序不合法，另外韩国的司法制度为三审终审制，被申请人已联系韩国律师启动该案的救济措施。被申请人在青岛无固定住所，也无可供执行的财产，青岛法院对此无管辖权。中华人民共和国辽宁省沈阳市中级人民法院在2015年作出了不予认可韩国法院判决的裁定，因此中韩两国还不适用互惠关系原则，所以本案应当驳回申请人的申请。
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.
经审查认定，韩国水原地方法院干2017年1月20日作出2017甲单(GADAN)15740号借款案件判决，判令被申请人向申请人支付8000万韩元及2017年6月17日起至偿还为止按年利率15计算的利息，并判令诉讼费用由被申请人承担。韩国水原地方法院主事朴圣俊确认，该判决于2017年7月28日送达被申请人尹智映，并于2017年8月11日发生法律效力。
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.
被申请人十年前来到中华人民共和国山东省青岛市城阳区，家庭收入主要为其丈夫的工资，被申请人在韩国没有职业， 没有财产。
It was also found that Seoul District Court of South Korea made the judgment "1999 GAHE No.26523" (1999甲合26523号) 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)潍经字初219号) 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， 韩国首尔地方法院于1999年 11 月 5日作出 1999甲合26523号信用证货款案件判决书，该判决书适用互惠原则承认中华人民共和国山东省潍坊市中级人民法院作出的(1997)潍经字初219号民事判决书，依据我国该生效判决书内容对案件进行了裁判。
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.
本院认为，根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百八十一条之规定， 外国法院作出的发生法律效力的判决、裁定，需要中华人民共和国人民法院承认和执 行的， 可以由当事人直接向中华人民共和国有管辖权的中级人民法院申请承认与执行. 现申请人向本院提出申请承认与执行涉案判决，根据本院查明事实 被中请人十年前即来到中华人民共和国，其经常居所地位于中华人民共和国山东省青岛市城阳区，故本院对本案有管辖权。
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.
《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百八十二条规定，人民法院对申请或者请求承认和执行的外国法院作出的发生法律效力的判决、裁定，依照中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约，或者按照互惠原则进行审查后，认为不违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全、社会公共利益的，裁定承认其效力，需要执行的，发出执行令，依照本法的有关规定执行。违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安金、社会公共利益的，不予承认和执行。
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.
涉案民事判决系韩国法院作出，我国与韩国之间并未缔结或者共同参见关于相互承认和执行生效裁判文书的国际条约，两国之间缔结的关于民事和商事司法协助的条约中仅规定了对仲裁裁决的承认和执行，所以本案申请人的申请是否应于支持，应依据互惠关系原则进行审查。由于韩国法院曾在司法实践中对我国山东省潍坊市中级人民法院的一份民事判决进行了承认，根据互惠原则，我国法院可以对符合条件的韩国法院的民事判决予以承认和执行。同时，上述韩国水原地方法院的判决系对申请人与被申请人之间的借贷关系作出，承认该民事判决并不违反我国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全和社会公共利益。虽然本案中披申请人声称没有收到过该判决书，但判决书中载明该判决的送达方式是依据韩国民事诉讼法进行的“公示送达”，申请人也出示了韩国法院出具的已经送达被申请人及判决已发生效力的证据，该证据经过公证认证，并经被申请人质证，对其真实性本院予以确。关于被申靖人抗辩称判决书中所涉8000万元韩币是双方在2009年刑事诉讼中渉及的，当时刑事诉讼中认定为投资资金，不同意8000万元韩币是借款资金的主张， 本院认为，本案为承认和执行外国法院判决、裁定，关于外国法院判决认定的案件事实及法律适用不在本案审查的范围之内.
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:
综上， 依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百八十一条，第二百八十二条的规定，裁定如下：
Recognizing and enforcing the civil judgment "2017 GADAN No.15740" issued by Suwon District Court of South Korea.
承认和执行韩国水原地方法院 2017甲单(GADAN)15740号民事判决。
The application fee, RMB￥100, shall be borne by the respondent.
案件申请费100元，由被申请人负担。
Presiding Judge Wang Xiaoqiong
审判长王晓琼
Judge Wang yingying
审判员王颖颖
Judge Yu Meng
审判员于梦
25 March 2009
二0九年三月二七五日
Law Clerk Qi Kang
书记员祁 康