[1] In a case where the pertinent contract does not have an arbitration clause in itself, and the content of other documents, including the general terms and conditions of transaction, including the arbitration clause, is deemed as the content of the contract (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that an arbitral award ordering the payment of delayed damages in foreign currency does not go against the law of the Republic of Korea, which is the governing law, for the parties' agreement

[3] Whether a lawsuit seeking the execution judgment can be prevented only by filing a lawsuit seeking the revocation of an arbitral award under the former Arbitration Act (negative)

[1] The arbitration contract itself does not specify the arbitration clause in the relevant contract, but does not allow the referring to other documents, such as the general terms and conditions of transaction containing the arbitration clause, so long as the parties are allowed to use such documents as the content of the contract.

[2] The case holding that an arbitral award ordering the payment of delayed damages in foreign currency does not go against the law of the Republic of Korea, which is the governing law, under the agreement between the parties

[3] Article 14(2) of the former Arbitration Act (amended by Act No. 6083 of Dec. 31, 1999) provides that no action for the cancellation of an arbitral award shall be brought only when there are grounds for filing a lawsuit for the cancellation of an arbitral award. Thus, the filing of a lawsuit for the cancellation of an arbitral award does not constitute grounds for preventing the filing of a lawsuit for the cancellation of an arbitral award.

[1] Article 2 (see current Article 8 of the Arbitration Act) of the former Arbitration Act (amended by Act No. 6083, Dec. 31, 1999) / [2] Article 2 (see current Article 8 of the Arbitration Act) of the former Arbitration Act (amended by Act No. 6083, Dec. 31, 1999); Article 377 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 13 (1) of the former Arbitration Act (amended by Act No. 6083, Dec. 31, 199); Article 14 (2) (see current Article 38 of the Arbitration Act) of the former Arbitration Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Meu23735 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 625) Supreme Court Decision 89Meu20252 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1043) Supreme Court Decision 96Da24385 delivered on February 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 866), Supreme Court Decision 99Da1357, 13584 delivered on April 10, 201 (Gong2001Sang, 1069)

S. S.A. (Law Firm Cheonghae, Attorneys Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Treatment Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na62598, 62604 delivered on June 29, 199

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The arbitration contract itself does not specify the arbitration clause in the relevant contract, but does not allow the parties to cite other documents, such as the general terms and conditions of transaction containing the arbitration clause, so long as the parties are allowed to do so (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da24385 delivered on February 25, 197).

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and agreed on September 4, 1996 that the defendant purchased bresan mountain for the purpose of delivery from the plaintiff to the Livestock Industry Cooperatives Federation (hereinafter "the Livestock Industry Cooperatives Federation") to comply with the terms and conditions of livestock consultation recognized by the parties as being familiar with the terms and conditions of the contract, and Article 14 (b) of the General Terms and Conditions for Livestock Industry Bidding (hereinafter "General Terms and Conditions") of the said General Terms and Conditions for Livestock Industry Bidding (hereinafter "General Terms and Conditions") of the said General Terms and Conditions were clearly recognized as having participated in the tender agreement and the 2nd General Terms and Conditions of the said General Terms and Conditions in relation to the 3rd General Terms and Conditions in relation to the 2nd General Terms and Conditions of the Agreement and thus, it appears that the 22nd General Terms and Conditions of the 3rd General Terms and Conditions in relation to the 3rd General Terms and Conditions of the Agreement and the 19th General Terms and Conditions in relation to the 3rd General Terms and Conditions of the Agreement.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the establishment of arbitration agreement or by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal pointing this out is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay damages in foreign currency to the plaintiff in the arbitration of this case; (b) the court below ordered the plaintiff to pay damages in foreign currency based on the defendant's claims for foreign currency; (c) the arbitral award actually ordered the plaintiff to pay damages in foreign currency; (d) the plaintiff to pay damages in accordance with the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; and (e) the compensation for delay under Article 5 (2) of the General Terms and Conditions provide that the compensation for delay shall be calculated on the basis of the price of the goods; and (e) the above compensation for delay shall be paid in U.S. dollars after directly deducting the contract price of the goods from the contract price of the goods; and (e) the above compensation for delay shall be paid in foreign currency; and (e) barring any special circumstance such as the parties agreed to pay in foreign currency, the court below determined that the above compensation for damages cannot be deemed to be foreign currency claims; and (e) the arbitral award cannot be deemed to constitute an incomplete or incomplete judgment on the ground that it did not constitute an arbitral award or an incomplete reasons.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the grounds for revoking the arbitral award as alleged in the grounds for appeal. This part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Article 14(2) of the former Arbitration Act (amended by Act No. 6083 of Dec. 31, 1999) provides that no execution judgment shall be rendered only when a lawsuit for the cancellation of an arbitral award can be filed. Thus, the filing of a lawsuit for the cancellation of an arbitral award alone does not constitute a ground for preventing a lawsuit seeking the execution judgment.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that there is no ground to acknowledge the failure of a suit for the cancellation of an arbitral award within the statutory period of time in a suit for a claim for the execution judgment of an arbitral award, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the execution judgment as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)