1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 1 of Eul, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant on the interior work contract with D Jong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "the contract in this case") on March 22, 2018, and according to Article 25 of the terms and conditions of the contract for the construction work in this case, the dispute arising under this contract shall, in principle, be resolved by agreement, and the dispute which is not settled between the parties shall be resolved by arbitration of the KCAB, and the dispute which is not settled by the parties shall be resolved by arbitration of the KCAB.

Judgment

Article 9(1) of the Arbitration Act provides that “When a lawsuit is instituted in respect of a dispute which is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement, if the defendant raises a defense that the arbitration agreement exists, the court shall dismiss the lawsuit.”

In addition, the arbitration agreement is not limited to the case where the arbitration clause is expressly stated in the contract itself, but it is allowed for the parties to accept other documents, such as the general transaction clause including the arbitration clause, so long as the parties are allowed to do so.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da24385 delivered on February 25, 1997). According to this, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, at the time of the instant contract, entered into an effective arbitration agreement to resolve all disputes related to the instant contract by arbitration of the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board, and the Defendant, while entering into the first pleading on the merits, filed a defense as to the existence of the said arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful in accordance with Article 9 of the Arbitration Act.

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.