Original Korean article here
Jurisdiction Decided Without Ruling on Core Legal Issues – ‘First Round Ends in a Draw’
- Court Decides Only on Jurisdiction Without Favoring Either Side
- ‘Netflix Services Korea’ Cannot Avoid a Full-Scale Legal Battle
The Christian Gospel Mission (CGM) Congregation Association stated, “The production of this program was based on unilateral claims without factual basis, and it intentionally used exaggerated expressions and falsehoods to defame CGM.” In response, the association filed a defamation lawsuit against Netflix’s U.S. headquarters, which holds the broadcasting rights and overall authority over all Netflix content, at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on February 29, 2024.
After a year of legal proceedings, the Delaware District Court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit based on the principle of “Forum Non Conveniens” (inconvenient forum). However, this was a conditional dismissal, meaning the case may only be dismissed if Netflix acknowledges Korean jurisdiction and agrees to proceed with the trial in Korea.
If the plaintiff (CGM Congregation Association) files a lawsuit against Netflix in Korea, but Netflix refuses to accept jurisdiction or service of process, or if the Korean court does not recognize jurisdiction over the case, then the lawsuit will return to the Delaware District Court for further proceedings.
According to the ruling, the dismissal was solely based on matters of jurisdiction and convenience, not on the merits of the case. The ruling explicitly states that no conclusions were drawn on the key legal issues, meaning neither side received a favorable ruling. The court applied the Forum Non Conveniens principle, which allows a lawsuit to be dismissed if a more appropriate and convenient court exists elsewhere, determining that Korea is the proper venue for this case.
Netflix Faces Unavoidable Legal Battle in Korea
Since the ruling only determined the proper jurisdiction and not the substantive legal claims, Netflix, headquartered in Delaware, must now face the legal battle in Korea if CGM proceeds with a lawsuit there. This effectively prevents Netflix from avoiding litigation in Korea, where the main legal dispute is expected to unfold.
The U.S. court conducted a three-step analysis under the Forum Non Conveniens doctrine:
1) Existence of an adequate alternative forum to hear the plaintiff’s claims. (Trotter v. 7R Holdings LLC, 873 F.3d 435, 442 (3d Cir. 2017))
2) The level of deference given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum. (Trotter, 873 F.3d 435, 442)
3) Balancing private and public interest factors to determine whether litigation in the alternative forum is more appropriate and convenient. (Trotter, 873 F.3d 435, 442)
Additionally, the court considered the volume of evidence based in Korea, the accessibility of relevant evidence, and the fact that the majority of third-party witnesses are Korean. Given these factors and Korea’s interest in resolving defamation claims involving its citizens, the court applied the Forum Non Conveniens principle to dismiss the case. However, since the ruling did not address the core legal issues, the dismissal did not disadvantage either party.
Potential Impact of Ongoing Investigation into ‘In the Name of God’ Producer
Meanwhile, Cho Sung-hyun, the producer of ‘In the Name of God,’ is reportedly under investigation by the Western District Prosecutor’s Office in Korea. If legal proceedings move forward in Korea, attention is now focused on how this investigation might impact the case.
On February 28, 2025 (local U.S. time), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the defamation lawsuit filed by the CGM Congregation Association against Netflix’s U.S. headquarters, citing jurisdictional reasons rather than ruling on the core legal issues.
