집행판결
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2
A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.
(1) Around December 2000, Defendant and I Companies (I; hereinafter “I”) jointly established the Plaintiff, a corporation specialized in asset-backed securitization, by acquiring 50% shares and bonds issued by the Plaintiff.
(2) On December 19, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant and I on the payment of dividend, etc. of the shares issued by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Article 10(b) and (c) of the instant agreement between the shareholders (hereinafter “instant arbitration clause”) of the instant agreement entered into between the parties to the agreement between the shareholders of the instant case and the parties to the agreement were incurred due to the agreement between the shareholders of the instant case or due to the interpretation or application of the instant agreement between the shareholders, and any dispute, dispute or claim related to the interpretation or application of the instant agreement between the shareholders, if the parties to the agreement between the shareholders of the instant case fail to settle in good faith, the agreement was determined to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICC).
(3) The contract between the shareholders of this case clearly states that the contract between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the I is a three-party contract at the opening date of the contract, and the plaintiff, the defendant, and I sign both at the end of the contract, and the contract between the shareholders of this case is used separately from the parties.
In addition, the agreement between the shareholders of this case provides for the shareholders in Article 5 as to the shareholders' dividends, and Articles 6 (f) and 2 (e) provide for the issuance of bonds and redemption of loans to the shareholders of this case.
(4) The Plaintiff is called K site from 2002 to 2003 (hereinafter “instant site”).