There are so many cases dealing with the issue of international jurisdiction and the recognition of foreign judgments in Taiwanese courts. In particular there are many judgments rendered by Taiwanese Supreme Court in transnational matrimonial matters. The sole criterion for Taiwanese courts to decide whether recognize foreign judgments is the application of the Article 402 of Civil Procedure Law. Article 402 is applied not only to foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, but also to those in matrimonial matters with international elements. But, as to the interpretation and application of Article 402, in particular Article 402(1) concerning indirect international jurisdiction, there is obvious different interpretation and application between civil and commercial foreign judgments and matrimonial cases. That is to say, in the cases involving indirect jurisdictional issue in international civil and commercial matters, the interpretation of Article 402(1) by Taiwanese courts is ambiguous an uncertain. The possible reason accountable for the avoidance in definite interpretation is that, most of the private international law scholars in Taiwan advocate that the gate for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments should be wide-opened as much as possible from the global point of view. Namely, the criterion as to determine indirect international jurisdiction should be more loose-fitting than direct international jurisdiction. What is the specific criterion to meet so-called loose- fitting condition for recognition of foreign judgments? No further explanation to be found in those who contends so-called loose-fitting standard in Taiwan. On the other hand, on the contrary in international matrimonial cases, most of the courts in Taiwan, including Taiwanese Supreme Court, indicate definitely that the criterion as to determine indirect international jurisdiction on Article 402(1) is identical to the determination of direct international jurisdiction, ie., the Article 568 in Civil Procedure Law in matrimonial litigations, such as divorce, legal separation and marriage annulment. The legal argument for such irreconcilable interpretation of identical Article 402 for the recognition of foreign judgments is nowhere to be found neither in the reasoning of Taiwanese courts' judgments nor in private-international-law commentaries. This article takes 3 Taiwanese-Supreme-Court cases for example, and argues that not only property-law cases with international elements, but also family-law ones should be applied in identical criterion as to the international jurisdiction issue. That is, the criterion to determine indirect international jurisdiction is identical to the determination of direct international jurisdiction, and this application is truth both to civil and commercial cases and matrimonial cases. Six chapters compose this essay. In the first place, jurisdictional issues presented in the cases rendered by Taiwanese Supreme Court will be examined. This essay explains the skeleton structure of jurisdictional statute in civil law nations, including Taiwan. This is the most important essence for the methodology in international civil procedure law (chapter one to three). Then, the concrete jurisdictional connecting factors in Civil Procedure Law, such as domicile, matrimonial domicile, last domicile and temporary residence will be examined from the international civil procedure law aspect. The reason why connecting factors such as temporary residence and nationality should not be taken account into the determination of international jurisdiction will be presented in chapter four. In consideration of that in practice, foreign divorce judgments has become a medium for liable spouse to repudiate marriage and to escape from the liability for adultery, the resolution will be proposed in chapter five. From the aspect of the indirect international jurisdiction and the regulation concerning divorce registry, this essay proposes that foreign divorcement judgments above-mentioned should not be recognized.