Bringing a claim for enforcement

Limitation periods

What is the limitation period for enforcement of a foreign judgment? When does it commence to run? In what circumstances would the enforcing court consider the statute of limitations of the foreign jurisdiction?

There is no specific limitation period prescribed under either the Civil Procedure Act or the Civil Execution Act of Korea for filing an action seeking the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment.

Accordingly, Korean courts are required to issue an enforcement judgment in principle if the foreign judgment satisfies the other statutory requirements for recognition and enforcement, without separately considering the statute of limitations of the foreign jurisdiction, absent exceptional circumstances.

Types of enforceable order

Which remedies ordered by a foreign court are enforceable in your jurisdiction?

Article 217(1) of the Civil Procedure Act of Korea provides that foreign judgments subject to recognition are 'final and conclusive judgments rendered by a foreign court or other decisions having the same effect'.

In this regard, if a foreign judgment (which satisfies the definition of a foreign judgment under article 217(1) of the Civil Procedure Act) relates to a civil dispute, it is capable of being recognised and enforced in Korea in principle, regardless of whether it concerns property rights or personal status. This may include judgments of performance, declaratory judgments, constitutive judgments and judgments ordering a party from refraining from a certain act. In practice, Korean case law has recognised and enforced various types of foreign judgments such as divorce decrees, custody and parental authority determinations, orders for child or spousal support and judgments ordering the handing over of a minor child.

In addition, the Supreme Court of Korea recently held that even if the form or wording of a specific performance decree issued by a foreign court differs from that of a Korean judgment, it may still be capable of being recognised and enforced in Korea, so long as it provides an equivalent level of legal relief under the Civil Execution Act and enforcement would also be available in the foreign jurisdiction (for example, a decree of specific performance issued by a US court).

As for interim measures such as provisional attachments or injunctions, there is no Supreme Court precedent yet addressing whether such orders are subject to recognition and enforcement, and academic opinions in Korea remain divided on this issue.

Competent courts

Must cases seeking enforcement of foreign judgments be brought in a particular court?

There is no specialised court in Korea that exclusively handles the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. However, a party seeking enforcement must commence proceedings before a district court, which serves as the court of first instance.

In principle, the district court having jurisdiction over the defendant’s address (in the event the defendant is an individual entity), or principal office or place of business (in the event the defendant is a corporate entity) has exclusive jurisdiction to review and render a judgment on the enforcement proceedings (article 26(2) of the Civil Execution Act). Accordingly, an enforcement action must be filed with that competent court.

Separation of recognition and enforcement

To what extent is the process for obtaining judicial recognition of a foreign judgment separate from the process for enforcement?

Under article 217(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a foreign judgment that satisfies the statutory requirements for recognition becomes automatically recognised in Korea, without the need for a separate judicial confirmation process (automatic recognition).

In contrast, enforcement of a foreign judgment requires a formal application before the competent court. This procedure involves a judicial review of whether the foreign judgment meets the requirements set out in the Civil Execution Act of Korea (articles 26 and 27) and the Civil Procedure Act (articles 217 and 217-2).

Only after obtaining judicial recognition through an enforcement judgment can the party initiate compulsory execution proceedings based on that enforcement title.

Enforcement and pitfalls

Enforcement process

Once a foreign judgment is recognised, what is the process for enforcing it in your jurisdiction?

The enforcement procedure of a foreign judgment generally proceeds through the following steps:

• the plaintiff files a claim for an enforcement judgment with the competent district court'

• the defendant may file an answer and the parties may exchange written submissions and present arguments;

• the court conducts a hearing to hear the parties’ positions;

• the court examines whether the statutory requirements under Korean law are satisfied (the court may not review the merits of the foreign judgment, article 27(1) of the Civil Enforcement Act); and

• if the court issues a recognition and enforcement judgment and such judgment becomes final and non-appealable, the plaintiff may proceed with a separate compulsory execution proceeding to enforce the judgment against the defendant’s assets.

Pitfalls

What are the most common pitfalls in seeking recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction?

The most common issue arising when applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in Korea is the failure to meet the statutory requirements set forth under the Civil Enforcement Act and the Civil Procedure Act. Specifically, the following factors may give rise to the defendant’s objections:

• finality of the judgment – where it is not sufficiently proven that the foreign judgment is truly final and conclusive (non-appealable) under the rendering jurisdiction’s legal system;

• lack of international jurisdiction – where the foreign court’s jurisdiction over the case is deemed unjustifiable according to Korean principles of international jurisdiction;

• defective or inadequate service of process – particularly in cases involving service by publication or other methods that fail to ensure proper notice to the defendant;

• violation of public policy – where the substance of the judgment or the procedures followed in the foreign court are contrary to Korea’s fundamental public policy, including principles of fairness, good faith or procedural due process;

• absence of reciprocity – especially where mutual recognition of judgments between Korea and the foreign jurisdiction is unclear or not established; and

• award of punitive damages or excessive attorney’s fees – amounts of the award are not recognised under Korean law – such as certain punitive damages, or unreasonably high legal fees – may be denied recognition or enforcement in whole or in part.