beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.05.25 2016가단303648

집행판결

Text

1. As to the Korean Commercial Arbitration Act No. 14211-0036, which is an incorporated association between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant caused a dispute related to the cost of design service in accordance with the construction design service contract for neighborhood living facilities located in Busan-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-dong, and the arbitral tribunal of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (the single arbitrator A) rendered an arbitral award on December 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant arbitral award”) in the arbitral proceedings conducted upon the Plaintiff’s request may be acknowledged by taking into account the descriptions of the evidence No. 1 and the overall purport of the pleadings.

(b) the enforcement of the award shall be by the judgment of execution by the court, and the award made within the territory of the Republic of Korea shall be enforced unless there is a ground under Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act.

(Article 37(1) and Article 38 of the Arbitration Act). According to the above facts, compulsory execution based on the instant arbitral award shall be permitted unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the arbitral award of this case contains misconceptions of facts and errors in the rules of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence, such as where the arbitrator does not examine the facts properly in the arbitral proceedings of this case and unfair proceedings such as a request for appraisal or a request for inquiry of facts, etc.

B. First of all, the arbitral award has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment of the court between both parties (Article 35 of the Arbitration Act), and the assertion that there is a mistake of facts or a violation of the rules of evidence cannot be deemed as a ground to deny the compulsory execution of the arbitral award of this case.

Next, as to the existence of the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award, the Health Board and the above circumstances alleged by the Defendant do not fall under any item of Article 36(2)1 of the Arbitration Act.

In addition, the above circumstances do not fall under subparagraph 2 (b) of the same paragraph.

In other words, “the recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award is contrary to the good morals and other social order of the Republic of Korea”.