(a) the case holding that an arbitration agreement under the arbitration clause, “All disputes shall be finally settled by arbitration in London,” is valid;

(b) The case holding that a ground for refusal of enforcement under Article 5 (1) (b) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards may not occur even if the arbitral proceedings violate some of the procedures set forth in the Rules of the Arbitrators, if the party did not comply with the notification of the other party's appointment of arbitrator and did not participate

Summary of the summary

(a) Article 2, (b) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gong172, Law Firm Gong1990, Law Firm Gong1043, Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Magreshing Cambodian

Ethical Ship Company

1. As to the arbitration case of "a Jin Cuan" related to the "Dacin Chan" No. 190, April 16, 1990 between the plaintiff and the defendant, the arbitral award in the attached Form, which was entered into by the London on February 12, 191, is a compulsory execution.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to charter "Accenture A" (hereinafter "the ship of this case") to the defendant to charter the ship, which was owned by the plaintiff on Apr. 16, 1990, and the plaintiff filed an application for arbitration with the "Accenture A", which is an arbitrator of the United Kingdom, based on the above contractual arbitration clause, and the above arbitrator filed the application for arbitration with the "Accenture B", which is the arbitrator of the United Kingdom, on Feb. 12, 1991.

2. On the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant made the above arbitral award, the defendant sought permission for compulsory execution based on the above arbitral award. The defendant argues to the purport that the plaintiff's request for the execution judgment of this case is unjustifiable because the above arbitral award has no valid agreement, and there is no proof as to whether the above arbitral award was made only by the qualified arbitrator, and there is no agreement between the parties in the designation of the arbitrator and the arbitral proceedings, or in violation of the applicable laws and regulations.

Therefore, the parties to the instant arbitral award are not entitled to 9 U.K. Arbitration Rules 1 to 3, No. 5-3, No. 1 to 9, and No. 1 to 3, No. 4, and No. 1 to 11, and No. 4 through No. 11 are entitled to 9. The parties to the instant arbitral award were not entitled to 9. The parties to the instant arbitral award and the instant arbitral award were not entitled to 9. The parties to the instant arbitral award and the instant arbitral award were not entitled to 9. The parties to the instant arbitral award and the instant arbitral award were not entitled to 9. The parties to the instant arbitral award and the instant arbitral award were not entitled to 9. The parties to the instant arbitral award and the instant arbitral award were not entitled to 9. The parties to the instant arbitral award and the instant arbitral award were not entitled to 9. The parties to the instant arbitral award on the grounds that they were not entitled to 9. The parties to the instant arbitral award and the instant arbitral award were not entitled to 9.

(1) The defendant asserts that the arbitration agreement is null and void because there is no agreement as to who becomes an arbitrator in the above arbitration agreement clause, and the designated arbitration agency is not in the United Kingdom. However, the arbitration agreement is sufficient as a written agreement to request the arbitration, and it does not require the place of arbitration or the arbitration agency or the arbitrator, and it is not necessary to specify the remaining part of the arbitration agreement, but it is not the name of the arbitration agency, and it is reasonable to view that the arbitration agency in the United Kingdom is called through the commercial dispute arbitration agency, not through the arbitration agency in the United Kingdom, in light of the fact that the latter part of the arbitration agreement is not used as the proper name.

(2) In addition, the Defendant asserts that, if there is a dispute over the cargo rental fee under the above charter party, the vessel owner and the charterer shall settle the dispute within 30 days after the date on which the vessel owner and the charterer submitted the schedule of loading and unloading time without any dispute over the authenticity (Article 31). Thus, if the agreement is not reached, only the parties may enter an arbitration by agreement. However, in full view of the above provisions of the Linin Arbitration and the above Article 31, the Defendant cannot interpret that the arbitration procedure cannot be commenced unless it goes through prior adjustment and arbitration agreement for the cargo rental amount.

(3) In addition, the defendant must comply with the above L.A. and C.A.A......, the defendant sent an arbitration application containing the required matters to the other party, and if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the arbitrator within 30 days after the document was served, each party may appoint an arbitrator and the other party shall be sent an explanation on the case within 30 days after the documents were served with the applicant's written consent, and the other party shall be sent within 30 days after the receipt of such explanation. The provisions of L.M.A.A. do not stipulate that the parties shall agree on the procedure of arbitration, and if so, specific arbitration procedures shall be followed, and if so, the other party shall not be present within 28 days after the agreement on the procedure of arbitration, and shall not be present within 19 days after the receipt of such documents, and the other party shall not be present within 19 days after the receipt of such notice to the defendant's remaining 19 days after the date of submission of defense documents.

(4) In addition, the defendant, at the end of the year, could not find an arbitrator at the time of the above request for the appointment of arbitrator at the time of the above arbitral proceedings. In addition, the defendant also stated that the arbitrator was no longer on the beginning of the year, and that the agent would appoint an arbitrator by January 7, 1990, the defendant notified the defendant that he would appoint an arbitrator by the next day of January 3 of the same year. The above arbitrator did not comply with the time limit for the proceedings and did not follow the above time limit, and did not request the plaintiff to provide any explanation to the defendant that he would be able to obtain any doubt about the above arbitrator's qualifications, etc. The defendant would not be able to accept the above time limit for the plaintiff's refusal to negotiate the arbitral proceedings on February 7, 191. Accordingly, the plaintiff's failure to respond to a series of negotiations, and thus, the defendant could not accept the above time limit for the plaintiff's refusal to accept the arbitration proceedings before the above time limit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking permission of compulsory execution based on the above arbitral award is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition. It is omitted in attached Form.

Judges Cho Jae-han (Presiding Judge)