Screen Korean international-divorce jurisdiction factors and compare Korea-first versus foreign-first translation, authentication, service, counsel, exchange, and recognition costs.
Check facts under Articles 56, 59, and 60 of Korea’s Private International Law. The result is a starting point, not a court ruling.
These preparation costs apply to both scenarios. Enter actual tax-inclusive quotes from providers.
Enter Korean filing, foreign service, and later recognition or enforcement abroad.
Default: 2 people × 15 deliveries × KRW 5,500; replace with the court amount.
Enter the foreign proceeding and later Korean recognition or registration costs.
Apply the same exchange and contingency assumptions to both scenarios.
Arithmetic total-cost difference
KRW 183,000
The foreign-first total is lower under the current inputs. This is not a procedural recommendation based on jurisdiction or recognition.
KRW 183,000
KRW 0
No listed Article 56 factor is present under the current selections.
A domestic filing budget can focus on court fees, service deposits, and counsel. A cross-border matter adds at least three separate questions: whether a Korean court may hear the dispute, how documents can be served in the destination state, and whether the resulting judgment needs recognition or enforcement in another country. Translation, certification, notarization, apostille, international courier, local counsel, foreign exchange, and later registration can therefore cost more than the initial filing itself.
This calculator keeps those questions separate. The jurisdiction section is a statutory checklist, not a legal conclusion. The cost sections use the quotes you enter rather than market averages. The comparison then applies one exchange rate, one transfer-fee assumption, and one contingency rate to a Korea-first and a foreign-first scenario so that the arithmetic is internally consistent.
The tool identifies selected statutory connecting factors but never states that Korean jurisdiction or Korean governing law is established.
Translation, foreign service, foreign counsel, and recognition defaults are zero so that an unverified market price is not mistaken for an official tariff.
A Korean judgment may need action abroad, while a foreign judgment may need Korean recognition, translation, and family-registration work.
Korea’s current Private International Law took effect on July 5, 2022. Article 56(1) lists four connecting-factor groups for marriage cases. The first requires both that at least one spouse be habitually resident in Korea and that the spouses’ last shared habitual residence was in Korea. The second concerns the plaintiff and all or part of the minor children being habitually resident in Korea. The third covers both spouses being Korean nationals. The fourth applies when a Korean-national plaintiff habitually resident in Korea seeks dissolution of the marriage only.
The fourth group deserves special care. If property division, custody, contact, or support is joined, a user should not assume that the dissolution-only route answers jurisdiction for every claim. Article 59 separately addresses child-related jurisdiction by the child’s Korean habitual residence or the shared Korean nationality of the child and one parent. Article 60 separately addresses maintenance when the maintenance creditor is habitually resident in Korea.
| Provision | Question screened | What the result means |
|---|---|---|
| Article 56 | Marriage connecting factors based on habitual residence, nationality, and scope of relief | A listed factor for counsel and court review, not a binding decision |
| Article 59 | Child habitual residence or shared Korean nationality with one parent | A separate child-issue signal |
| Article 60 | Maintenance creditor habitually resident in Korea | A separate support-issue signal |
| Articles 2 and 12 | Substantial connection, fairness, efficiency, and exceptional stay | Case-specific review remains necessary |
An international-jurisdiction factor does not automatically select Korean law. Articles 64 and 66 use common nationality, common habitual residence, the closest connection, and a Korean-spouse exception for governing-law analysis. Domestic venue within Korea is another question under Korean family-procedure rules. A lawyer should review all three layers and any joined claims.
Article 7 of Korea’s Act on International Judicial Mutual Assistance in Civil Matters generally calls for a translation into an official language of the requested state. The requesting party attaches the translation, and translation expense is treated as litigation cost. If the destination’s official language cannot be identified, the statute addresses an English translation, but that is not a reason to skip the destination authority’s current requirements.
The Hague Service Convention entered into force for the Republic of Korea on August 1, 2000. That fact alone does not determine how a document can be served in another state. Each destination can have its own central authority, required translations, declarations, objections to particular channels, execution-officer charges, and expected forms. The calculator therefore records the route you have confirmed but does not select it for you.
Article 9 of Korea’s judicial-assistance statute also allows expected service or evidence costs chargeable to a party to be prepaid. Keep a fixed foreign-service deposit separate from a per-recipient, per-attempt amount. If the court later assesses a different amount, replace the planning figure with the court notice. Preserve the request, translation, dispatch, receipt, and certificate trail because proof of service may matter again at recognition.
| Cost item | Default | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Paper first-instance family filing fee | KRW 20,000 | Family Litigation Fee Rules Article 2 reference |
| Electronic filing fee | KRW 18,000 | Ninety percent of the paper fee |
| Domestic service planning deposit | KRW 165,000 | Two people × fifteen deliveries × KRW 5,500; court notice controls |
| Translation, authentication, and foreign service | KRW 0 | Replace zero with destination- and case-specific quotes |
| Exchange rate and spread | 0 and 0% | Enter the actual planning or transfer-day terms |
Do not assume that service by public notice is immediately available or that it will be sufficient in every later recognition forum. Address investigation, court-directed attempts, and evidence of adequate notice can affect both cost and enforceability. Enter a realistic repeat-attempt count only after discussing the route with the filing court or counsel.
Add the Korean filing fee, any additional court assessment, domestic service deposit, foreign-service variable and fixed costs, Korean counsel, and other Korean procedure costs. Then add the foreign-currency quote for recognizing or enforcing the Korean judgment abroad. This last step is easy to overlook when assets, civil-status records, or enforcement targets sit outside Korea.
Add foreign court and service costs, foreign counsel, and other foreign procedure costs in one currency. Then add the Korean-won quote for recognition, translation, legal review, or family-registration follow-up in Korea. A foreign divorce judgment should not be treated as automatically effective in Korea without checking the required documents and recognition conditions.
The lower card is only the lower arithmetic total under your entries. It is not a recommendation about forum. Habitual residence, child stability, emergency relief, property location, evidence access, governing law, service feasibility, duration, and recognition may matter more than the cost difference. Obtain procedure and fee views from counsel in each relevant country using the same factual summary and scope of claims.
Assume twenty source pages translated into two languages at KRW 30,000 per page, KRW 100,000 for translation certification, three notarized documents at KRW 50,000 each, two apostilles at KRW 25,000 each, five interpreter hours at KRW 100,000, KRW 30,000 in certificates, and KRW 70,000 in copying and courier charges. Shared preparation is KRW 2,100,000.
For Korea first, assume paper filing, KRW 30,000 in added court fees, a KRW 165,000 domestic deposit, two recipients with two foreign-service attempts each at KRW 80,000, a KRW 100,000 fixed foreign-service charge, KRW 5,000,000 in Korean counsel fees, KRW 200,000 in other procedure costs, and 1,000 foreign-currency units for later recognition abroad. At KRW 1,350 per unit, a 2% spread, a KRW 30,000 transfer fee, and a 10% contingency, the total is KRW 10,276,200.
For the foreign-first comparison, assume 1,500 units for court and service, 4,000 for foreign counsel, 500 for other procedure costs, and KRW 1,000,000 for Korean follow-up. Using the same exchange assumptions and contingency gives KRW 12,531,200. The arithmetic difference is KRW 2,255,000, but the example still says nothing conclusive about jurisdiction, speed, or recognition.
No. The checklist identifies a statutory factor based on your selections. A court still reviews the facts, substantial connection, fairness, procedural efficiency, joined claims, domestic venue, and any exceptional stay issue. Obtain case-specific advice before filing.
Not automatically. Declarations and objections differ by state, and the filing court may direct a particular channel. Review the HCCH destination profile and the current court instruction instead of inferring a route from membership alone.
They vary by language, document condition, certification, urgency, country, claims, and lawyer scope. A made-up default could be mistaken for an official tariff. Enter tax-inclusive written quotes and update them when the document set changes.
No. It is a planning reference using two people, fifteen deliveries each, and the KRW 5,500 rate effective from June 1, 2025. Party count, actual attempts, court assessments, additional payments, and refunds control the final amount.
Korean Civil Procedure Act Article 217 addresses foreign jurisdiction, adequate service and time to defend, public policy, and reciprocity. The judgment form, finality certificate, service evidence, translations, and family-registration documents also need current case-specific review.
Start with the jurisdiction facts, then collect itemized figures from the Korean court, counsel in both countries, translation and authentication providers, and the confirmed service channel. Update the exchange rate and bank charges near the transfer date. Replace the domestic and foreign service estimates whenever the court issues an assessment or the destination authority confirms a different requirement.
The result can organize a consultation and expose missing budget lines. It does not replace legal advice, determine jurisdiction or governing law, select a service method, predict timing, or guarantee recognition of a judgment.