[2] Where an arbitrator fails to file an application for challenge under Article 14 of the Arbitration Act even though he/she became aware of the grounds for challenge in any circumstance, whether the arbitral award may be asserted for the annulment of the arbitral award on the grounds that the arbitrator has breached the procedure of disclosure of the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure under Article 13(1) of the Arbitration Act, which is late after the issuance of the arbitral award, or that there is a violation of the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure (negative with qualification)

[3] The case holding that where an attorney-at-law belonging to a law firm, such as an attorney of a party to an arbitral award, was appointed as an arbitrator, it cannot be deemed that there is a serious reason to suspect the arbitrator's fairness or independence to the extent that the judge under Article 41 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Act was or was an agent of the party to the case

[2] In the absence of a written notice to the Secretariat by the arbitrator, etc., if the arbitrator, etc. notified the parties of the grounds for suspicion of the arbitrator, etc.'s impartiality or independence which he/she became aware of in the absence of any other circumstances, unless there exist special circumstances, such as that the arbitrator, etc. may give rise to doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality or independence within a fixed period of time, the arbitrator, etc.'s grounds for challenge may not be asserted as constituting "when the organization of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings do not comply with the Arbitration Act" or "when the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards violates good morals or other social order" under Article 25 of the Arbitration Rules in relation to the arbitrator, etc.'s duty of disclosure under Article 13 (1) of the Arbitration Act, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the arbitrator, etc.'s grounds for challenge may be deemed to constitute a serious ground for exclusion as provided by Article 41 (Reasons for Exclusion) of the Civil Procedure Act.

[3] The case holding that where an attorney-at-law belonging to a law firm, such as an attorney of a party to an arbitral award, was appointed as an arbitrator, it cannot be deemed that there is a serious reason to suspect the arbitrator's fairness or independence to the extent that the judge under Article 41 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Act was or was an agent of the party to the case.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts based on its adopted evidence, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the attorney-at-law belonging to the law firm, such as the representative of one party to the arbitral award, as well as the representative of one party, was not informed to the plaintiff who is the party concerned of the fact that the defendant's participation in the arbitrator is a reason to clearly doubt the fairness and impartiality of the arbitrator, but it constitutes "where the composition of the arbitral tribunal, which is the ground for revocation, does not comply with the Arbitration Act" or "where the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award violates good morals and other social order of the Republic of

The fact that Nonparty 1 is an attorney-at-law belonging to the law firm, such as Nonparty 2, who is the respondent of the case requesting arbitration (the arbitrator is an attorney-at-law of the same law firm as the defendant's attorney-at-law who was at the time when Nonparty 1 was employed as a legal expert belonging to the defendant's office, and was involved in the above case at the time when he was an attorney-at-law belonging to the same law firm as the defendant's attorney-at-law who was involved in the defendant's representative in the above case requesting arbitration, insofar as the plaintiff's attorney-at-law was notified of the above facts from the officer of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board on September 30, 202, the hearing date, within 15 days in accordance with the above Arbitration Act, the plaintiff's attorney-at-law filed an application for challenge with the arbitral tribunal within the scope of 15 days in accordance with the above Arbitration Act and did not follow such procedures even if it did not dispute the existence of the grounds for challenge and the procedure for challenge after the delay in the arbitral proceedings.

2. With respect to the grounds for challenge and the procedure for challenge against an arbitrator, Article 13 (Reasons for Challenge to an Arbitrators), the Arbitration Act provides that “(i) a person requested to appoint an arbitrator or an appointed arbitrator shall notify without delay the parties if there is any reason to give rise to doubts as to his impartiality or independence. (ii) An arbitrator may be challenged only if there is a reason under paragraph (1) or a reason not meeting the qualifications agreed to by the parties.” (ii) In Article 14(Procedures for Challenge to an arbitrator), paragraph (2) of the Arbitration Act provides that “a party who wishes to challenge an arbitrator shall file a written challenge with the Arbitral Tribunal within 15 days after he becomes aware of the date of the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal or the reason not to challenge the arbitrator; hereinafter the same shall apply).” Furthermore, Article 25 (Notice of Disqualification to an arbitrator) of the Arbitration Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board provides that the party who has received notice of appointment shall not be informed in writing of the reasons not later than 15 days after the date of receipt of the appointment to the Arbitral Tribunal.

Article 13(1) of the Arbitration Act provides that the disclosure obligation to the parties of the appointed arbitrator (hereinafter referred to as "arbitr, etc.") under Article 5(1) shall be deemed a compulsory provision not to be a "voluntary provision of the Arbitration Act" but a "voluntary provision of the Arbitration Act". However, the Arbitration Act does not provide for the disclosure procedure, while it does not provide for the disclosure procedure under Article 25(1) of the Arbitration Rules, the Act provides that the disclosure procedure of the arbitrator, etc. who is notified in writing to the parties is not a direct notification to the parties, but rather provides for the method of notifying the parties by the Secretariat of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Resources to the parties. Thus, even if the Secretariat of the arbitrator, etc. notified the parties of the reasons why the arbitrator, etc. becomes aware of the arbitrator, etc.'s impartiality or independence due to any other circumstance, the arbitrator, etc. may not be deemed to violate Article 41(1) of the Arbitration Rules or any other serious reason for exclusion of the arbitrator, etc., such as the disclosure procedure under Article 5(1) of the Arbitration Rules, unless there is any justifiable reason for exclusion or exclusion.

However, as acknowledged by the court below, the defendant does not appoint the law firm composed of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the representative of the case requesting arbitration, and the law firm members in fact discontinued its business and appointed the non-party 2 as the defendant's employee under the qualification of the defendant as the non-party 2, who was the defendant's employee at the time of the suspension of its business. This cannot be viewed as a serious reason for causing doubts as to the non-party 1's fairness or independence as long as the judge under Article 41 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Act becomes or becomes the representative of the party in the case. Thus, the defendant's representative of the non-party 1 among the commercial financial resources of the KCA, who did not inform the KCA's Secretariat of the above reasons, which would cause doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality or independence, or who did not know the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 2's legal representative after the hearing date of the KCA's request for arbitration, which violated the law of disclosure or other reasons.

Although the judgment of the court below is not partially inappropriate, the conclusion of rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)