[1] In a case where a company reorganization procedure has commenced against a party after a foreign arbitral award and a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claims reported based on such foreign arbitral award is instituted, whether the competent court shall render a judgment in accordance with the foreign arbitral award (affirmative in principle)

[2] The meaning of "where the recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award is contrary to the public order of that country" under Article 5 (2) (b) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as a ground for refusal to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award, and the method of determining such case

[3] The case where the court of enforcement country can refuse the enforcement of the foreign arbitral award on the ground that the foreign arbitral award to which the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards applies is obtained by fraudulent means

[4] Measures to be taken by a party asserting that a foreign arbitral award to which the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards applies is obtained by fraud

[1] Where a reorganization procedure under the former Company Reorganization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005) commences with respect to a party to a foreign arbitral award to which the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards applies, and an objection is raised as to reorganization claims reported on the basis of such foreign arbitral award on the claim inspection date, and a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claims is instituted, the foreign arbitral award has res judicata effect as it has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment. Thus, the competent court of a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claims shall render a judgment to confirm reorganization claims and voting rights in accordance with the order of foreign arbitral award unless the grounds for refusal of approval

[2] Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides that the recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused by a court of enforcement in cases where the recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to the public order of the enforcement country. The purpose of this Convention is to prevent the recognition or enforcement of the foreign arbitral award subject to the above Convention from undermining the basic moral belief and social order of the enforcement country, and to protect it. Thus, it shall be interpreted narrowly by taking into account not only domestic circumstances but also the stability of international trade order. If the recognition of the foreign arbitral award is made, the recognition or enforcement of the award may be refused only in cases where the specific result would be contrary to the good morals and other social order of the enforcement country.

[3] With respect to a foreign arbitral award to which the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards applies, the court of enforcement may independently deliberate and decide on the matters determined within the extent necessary to determine whether there exists a ground for refusal of enforcement under Article 5 of the above Convention, and the grounds for refusal of enforcement under Article 5(2)(b) of the above Convention may include cases where the arbitral award is obtained by fraud. However, the court of enforcement shall not refuse enforcement of the foreign arbitral award immediately, even if the foreign arbitral award is cancelled or suspended under the pretext of deliberation on whether or not the foreign arbitral award is obtained by fraud, such as the fact-finding of the arbitrator and application of the law in substance under the pretext of deliberation on whether or not the foreign arbitral award is obtained by fraud. However, it is clearly acknowledged by objective evidence with clear probative value that the applicant party committed fraudulent acts in the arbitral proceedings. It is not possible to defend against attack in the arbitral proceedings because the applicant party did not know the fraud of the applicant party without negligence, and only if the respondent party's act satisfies important requirements related to the fraud of the foreign arbitral award.

[4] The opposing party to a decision on the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award to which the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards applies may apply for the cancellation or suspension of the foreign arbitral award to the country in which the foreign arbitral award was rendered or to the competent authority of the country to which the statute which forms the basis of the foreign arbitral award belongs. In this case, the court of enforcement may, if it is deemed appropriate in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, either postpone the decision on the enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and order the opposing party to provide adequate security at the request of the requesting party. If the opposing party asserts that the foreign arbitral award was obtained by deceptive means and participates in the decision seeking the cancellation or suspension of the foreign arbitral award through the above procedure, he may assert the refusal of enforcement of the foreign arbitral award pursuant to Article 5(1)(e) of the Convention

[1] Article 147 of the former Company Reorganization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005) (see current Article 170 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), Articles 35, 37(1), and 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards / [2] Articles 37(1) and 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, Article 5(2)(b) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards / [3] Articles 37(1) and 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, Article 5(2)(b) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards / [4] Articles 37(1) and 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, Article 5(1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

[2] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu20252 Decided April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1043) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da35795 Decided December 8, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2001Da20134 Decided April 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1148)

Mic chip chip (Law Firm Jeongp et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The administrator of the same mining pulf corporation, who is the supervisor of the same mining pulf corporation, the trustee of the same mining pulf corporation, the taking over of the lawsuit for the purification of the work (Law Firm Sejong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2003Na12311 delivered on February 16, 2006

Of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment below, the principal part of reorganization claim based on the arbitral award dated April 2, 1998 and the arbitral award dated July 14, 1998 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the reorganization claim based on an arbitral award

A. Where a reorganization procedure under the former Company Reorganization Act (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005) commences with respect to one party of a foreign arbitral award to which the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter “New York Convention”) applies after a foreign arbitral award, and an objection is raised against reorganization claims reported on the basis of such foreign arbitral award at the claim inspection date, and a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claims is instituted, the foreign arbitral award has res judicata effect as it has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment. Thus, the court having jurisdiction over a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claims shall make a judgment confirming reorganization claims and voting rights in accordance with the order for adjudication of foreign arbitral awards unless grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement under Article

Article 5 of the New York Convention provides that the recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused in cases where the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement are restricted and the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award is contrary to the public order of that country. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the recognition or enforcement of a foreign arbitral award subject to the New York Convention from undermining the basic moral belief and social order of the enforcing country, and to protect it. Thus, it shall be limited in consideration of not only domestic circumstances but also the aspects of stability of international trade order. If the recognition of the foreign arbitral award is recognized, the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused only in cases where the specific result would be contrary to the good morals and other social order of the enforcing country (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da35795, Dec. 8, 200; 201Da20134, Apr. 11, 2003).

With respect to a foreign arbitral award to which the New York Convention applies, the court of enforcement may independently deliberate and determine the matters determined within the necessary extent to judge whether there exists a ground for refusal of enforcement of the New York Convention Article 5.2(b). The grounds for refusal of enforcement of the New York Convention may include cases where the arbitral award is obtained by fraud. However, in light of the fact that Article 5 of the New York Convention lists the grounds for refusal of enforcement in a limited manner and that an arbitrator’s mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles are excluded from grounds for refusal of enforcement, and that the existence of a claim which is the subject of the arbitral award has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment has already become final and conclusive between the parties, it is necessary to review and determine the substantive matters of the foreign arbitral award which are determined within the scope to judge whether there is a ground for refusal of enforcement of the New York Convention. Accordingly, if the enforcement state examines whether the foreign arbitral award is obtained or not, the court of enforcement may, without regard to the denial of enforcement of the said foreign arbitral award, order the foreign arbitral award not to be subject to fraud by means of objective fraud (hereinafter).

나. 원심판결 이유와 기록에 의하면, 정리절차 개시 전의 동해펄프 주식회사(이하, 정리절차가 종결된 피고와 구별하여 ‘동해’라고 한다)는 원고에게 동해의 자회사인 미합중국 앨라배마 주 소재 도오핀 프로덕트사(Dauphin Products Inc. 이하 ‘D.P.I’라고 한다)를 매각하면서, 그 공장 및 영업시설에 대한 대가로 원고로부터 미화 5,000,000달러를 지급받고, 향후 10년간 동해에 대한 우드칩 독점공급권을 원고에게 부여하는 대가로 미화 합계 5,190,000달러 상당의 칩 공급가격을 할인받기로 하는 내용의 우드칩 독점공급계약(이하 ‘이 사건 계약’이라고 한다)을 체결한 사실, 그 후 원고는 1996. 3. 28. 동해의 구입물량 미달로 인하여 손해를 입었다고 주장하면서 국제상업회의소 중재재판소에 동해를 상대로 손해배상을 구하는 제1차 중재신청을 하였고, 같은 해 7. 23. 동해가 그의 귀책사유로 이 사건 계약을 위반하여 이 사건 계약이 해지되었고 동해가 우드칩의 국제 시가보다 저가에 우드칩을 공급받았다고 주장하면서 국제상업회의소 중재재판소에 동해를 상대로 남은 계약기간 동안의 일실이익 손해배상 및 1994년도 및 1995년도에 공급한 우드칩에 대한 공급가격 차액에 대한 조정보상금 등의 지급을 구하는 제2차 중재신청을 한 사실, 중재인으로 선정된 소외 1(외국인)은 중재지인 홍콩에서 중재절차를 진행하였는데, 중재인은 당사자들의 서명 하에 쟁점정리표를 작성한 후 당사자들로 하여금 쟁점에 따른 모든 증거서류 및 법령자료 등을 제출하게 하고 서로 교환하도록 한 다음, 집중적으로 변론을 열어 양측 당사자가 신청한 증인들을 신문하는 등으로 증거조사를 한 사실, 변론기일 후 중재인은 당사자들에게 준비서면을 제출할 기회를 부여하여 원고와 동해는 각기 상세한 준비서면을 각 제출한 사실, 위 중재절차에서 원고는 동해의 1994년도 및 1995년도 구입물량 미달로 인한 이 사건 계약 위반 주장, 동해의 1996년도 선적인수와 신용장개설 거부, 제3의 공급원으로부터 우드칩을 구입함에 따른 원고의 독점공급권 침해 등을 이유로 한 이 사건 계약 위반 주장 및 이를 원인으로 하는 이 사건 계약의 해지 주장, 한글계약서에 기한 계약불성립 주장, 한글계약서 제9.2조와 제9.3조의 불공정성 및 신의칙 위반 등을 이유로 한 무효 주장 혹은 이에 관한 착오·사기를 이유로 한 취소 주장, 한글계약서 제9.2조와 제9.3조 등을 삭제한 영문계약서의 유효성 주장, 동해의 이 사건 계약 위반으로 인하여 원고가 입은 손해의 범위 및 제반 비용에 관한 주장 등을 하고 그에 관한 증거를 제출하였으며, 동해는 이에 대하여 한글계약서의 유효 주장 및 통정허위표시를 이유로 한 영문계약서의 무효 주장, 원고 측 증인들의 신뢰성에 관한 이의제기, 동해의 이 사건 계약의 불이행 사실 부인 및 원고의 이 사건 계약 위반 주장, 한글계약서 제9.2조와 제9.3조를 근거로 동해의 원고에 대한 손해배상예정액이 최대 5,190,000달러를 초과하지 못한다는 주장 및 독점공급권의 대가인 5,190,000달러를 자동채권으로 하여 원고의 손해배상채권과 상계한다는 주장, 원고의 손해 범위에 관한 증거의 신빙성 탄핵, 우드칩 공급가격 차액 조정에 관한 중재판정 배제 주장 등을 하고 그에 관한 증거를 제출한 사실, 중재인은, 1998. 1. 21. D.P.I.의 실질적 인수대금 액수, 독점공급권의 대가인 5,190,000달러의 성격, 한글계약서 제9.2조와 제9.3조의 불합리성 유무 및 한글계약서 작성 당시 위 조항의 의미에 대한 원고의 대리인 소외 2의 이해 내지 인식 정도 등에 대하여 심리한 후, 판정주문에서 원고와 동해 사이의 이 사건 계약에 적용될 유효한 계약서는 불합리한 한글계약서 제9.2조와 제9.3조를 삭제한 영문계약서이고, 원고와 동해 사이의 연간 최소 공급물량은 영문계약서에 따른 연간 200,000톤이라는 취지의 제1차 중재판정(이하 ‘이 사건 제1차 중재판정’이라고 한다)을 하고, 1998. 4. 2. 제2차 중재판정의 판정주문에서 원고가 청구한 1994년도 및 1995년도의 우드칩 공급가격 차액 조정보상금 중 2,741,341달러 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 동해가 원고에게 지급하여야 한다는 취지의 판정(이하 ‘이 사건 제2차 중재판정’이라고 한다)을 하고, 1998. 7. 14. 최종 중재판정에서는, 동해가 1996년 5월 이후 선적인수 및 신용장개설을 거부하고 제3의 공급원으로부터 우드칩을 공급받음으로써 이 사건 계약을 위반하였으므로 동해는 원고에 대하여 손해배상책임이 있다고 전제한 다음, 그 판정주문에서 동해는 원고에게 1997년부터 1999년까지의 일실이익 5,500,000달러 및 이에 대한 지연손해금과 중재비용 392,260달러를 지급하여야 한다는 취지의 판정(이하 ‘이 사건 최종 중재판정’이라고 한다)을 한 사실, 그 후 동해는 1998. 8. 31. 울산지방법원으로부터 회사정리절차개시의 결정을 받았고, 원고는 정리채권 신고기간 내에 이 사건 제2차 중재판정 및 최종 중재판정에 기한 채권(이하 ‘이 사건 중재판정금 채권’이라고 한다)과 원고와 동해 사이의 이 사건 계약이 해지됨에 따라 거양해운 주식회사(이하 ‘거양해운’이라고 한다)와 체결한 장기용선계약이 이행불능됨으로써 원고가 거양해운에 손해배상채무를 부담하게 되는 손해를 입었음을 주장하며 그 손해배상청구채권을 각 정리채권으로 신고하였으나, 정리회사 동해의 관리인은 채권조사기일에서 지급의무가 없음을 이유로 이에 대하여 모두 이의한 사실 등을 알 수 있다.

C. Since the second arbitral award and the last arbitral award are rulings issued by Hong Kong to which the New York Convention applies with respect to disputes arising from commercial legal relations, they are foreign arbitral awards to which the New York Convention applies. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if the defendant asserts that the second arbitral award and the last arbitral award in this case are obtained by the plaintiff's fraudulent act, the records indicate that the plaintiff's above arbitral award in this case is valid under Articles 9.2 and 9.3 of the Korean Contract, whether the contract in this case was violated under the same year, whether the supply price of 194 and 195 between the plaintiff and the damages of the right to arbitration, and whether the second arbitral award and the last arbitral award were punished for the purpose of acquiring the arbitration award by deceiving the arbitrator, they cannot be deemed to have been clearly acknowledged by objective evidence with probative value, and it cannot be deemed that the court below, on its own account, did not recognize that the second arbitral award and the last arbitral award were unlawful by submitting the evidence and opportunity for the plaintiff's allegation of the above facts in the above arbitral proceedings and did not constitute fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below independently compiled the evidence in its ruling and made a legal judgment, and subsequently rejected the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation of reorganization claim and voting right equivalent to the same amount as the claim for arbitral award of this case, contrary to the order of the second arbitral award of this case and the final arbitral award of this case, on the ground that there is a reason to refuse recognition and enforcement of Article 5(2)(b) of the New York Convention, since the Plaintiff submitted false allegations and false evidence and obtained the second arbitral award and the final arbitral award of this case from the arbitrator although it is objectively clear that the Plaintiff’s assertion in the above arbitral proceedings is different from the facts. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on interpretation and application of Article 5(2)(b) of the New York Convention, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, the court below rejected the claim for confirmation of reorganization claim and voting right equivalent to the same amount of damages for delay among the claim for arbitral award of this case on the ground that it is unlawful, and the plaintiff did not submit any ground of appeal as to this part. Thus, the appeal on the claim for damages for delay cannot be accepted. Therefore, the ground of appeal on the ground of appeal is with merit within the scope of principal part among the claim for arbitral award of this case.

2. As to the damage claim related to the Seongdong Shipping

In light of the records, we affirm the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered damages from Syang Shipping due to the termination of the contract of this case, since it is difficult to see that the Dong Sea violated the duty under the contract of this case to the extent that the contract of this case was terminated, thereby destroying the trust relationship, which serves as the basis for the maintenance and maintenance of the contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the termination of the contract of this case and damages as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part against the plaintiff in the judgment below, the principal part of reorganization claim based on the second arbitral award and final arbitral award of this case is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)