[1] The probative value of a disposal document recognized as authentic and the method of interpreting the intent of the parties indicated in the disposal document

[2] Criteria for determining whether a specific arbitration clause is effective as an arbitration agreement

[3] The scope of validity of the arbitration agreement

[4] In a case where an arbitral award orders the performance of a monetary obligation at the same time, and at the same time orders the payment of damages for delay at the statutory rate under Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings violates the mandatory law or good morals and other social order (negative), and in a case where the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision after the arbitral award, whether

[5] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which interpreted the specific arbitration clause as exclusive arbitration clause in light of the circumstance where the arbitration clause was prepared

[1] In a case where the authenticity of a disposition document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the relevant disposition document unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement. In a case where there is a difference between the parties about the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret the content of the text, the motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent in accordance with logical and empirical rules

[2] The arbitration agreement becomes effective when the parties concerned agree in writing to settle all or part of a dispute which has already occurred or may future in connection with a legal relationship under private law by arbitration, not by the court ruling. Thus, in order to see that a specific arbitration clause is effective as an arbitration agreement, it shall be determined by taking full account of specific circumstances, such as the content of the arbitration clause in question and the circumstances in which the parties concerned placed the arbitration clause, based on the concept of arbitration under the Arbitration Act, the nature or method of the arbitration agreement,

[3] The arbitration agreement shall have its effect not only on the contract itself with which the arbitration clause is expressly stated, but also on a dispute directly related to the formation and implementation of the contract and its existence and validity or closely related thereto.

[4] In an arbitral award, it may also be permitted to determine a monetary obligation based on the principle of fairness, regardless of the positive law, as a case may be. Thus, when ordering the performance of a monetary obligation in an arbitral award, the arbitral award ordered the payment of damages for delay at the statutory interest rate as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Act No. 6868 of May 10, 2003) which was in force at the time of the arbitral award, and it does not constitute a violation of compulsory law or a violation of good morals and other social order. Although the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision after the arbitral award was made, it does not change the above provision, unless there

[5] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the "Dispute Resolution" in the construction contract shall not be deemed to be a selective arbitration clause in light of the contents of the arbitration clause that "if there is a legal dispute, both parties shall comply with the arbitration of the Busan Branch of the Republic of Korea under the Arbitration Act, and if there is a legal dispute, the court shall be the competent court at the domicile of the contractor, and it shall not be deemed to be an exclusive arbitration clause, and the "if there is a legal dispute" in the above agreement shall be deemed to be an agreement under the jurisdiction of Article 7 of the Arbitration Act as to the lawsuit that may be brought in relation to the arbitration procedure

[1] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Arbitration Act, Articles 8 and 9 (1) of the Arbitration Act / [3] Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Arbitration Act / [4] Article 36 (2) of the Arbitration Act, Article 52 of the Arbitration Rules, Article 3 (1) of the former Arbitration Rules, Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act / [5] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Arbitration Act, Articles 7 and 8 of the Arbitration Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da16601 decided Feb. 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1290), Supreme Court Decision 96Da1320 decided Apr. 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 139), Supreme Court Decision 97Da5060 decided Dec. 12, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 256), Supreme Court Decision 200Da4517, 4524 decided Apr. 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1185), Supreme Court Decision 2009Da23574 decided Feb. 27, 201 (Gong2016 decided Apr. 26, 2005)

Han New Public Co., Ltd. (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Lee Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-

Han-dong Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Cho Young-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2004Na6993, 7002 delivered on October 21, 2004

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

If the authenticity of a disposition document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is clear and acceptable evidence to deny the contents of the statement. If there is an opinion regarding the interpretation of the contract between the parties concerned, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the statement, the motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da48265, Feb. 26, 2002, etc.). An arbitration agreement is not effective by a written agreement to resolve all or part of disputes arising out of legal relations under private law without recourse to the court ruling, and it shall not be deemed that the specific arbitration clause is effective as an arbitration agreement, and it shall not be deemed that the pertinent arbitration agreement has been in violation of the principle of good customs and good customs of the parties concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da16816, Apr. 16, 2019, 2002).

The court below determined that the above arbitration clause was not a selective arbitration clause in light of the process of its preparation, etc., and rather, it should be interpreted as an exclusive arbitration clause, and "in case there is a legal dispute" in the above agreement, it should be viewed as a case where the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) agreed on the facts as follows, and even if both parties agreed on the arbitration of the Busan Branch of the Korean Commercial Resources according to the Arbitration Act, it cannot be seen as a case where there is a legal dispute. In addition, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim as to the plaintiff's counterclaim as provided in Article 6 (2) of the Arbitration Act (the plaintiff plaintiff's counterclaim) of the Arbitration Act (the plaintiff plaintiff's counterclaim) on July 3, 202. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim as to the plaintiff's counterclaim as to the plaintiff's counterclaim as provided in Article 7 of the Arbitration Act (the plaintiff's counterclaim).

In light of the records, this measure of the court below is justified and acceptable as it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of the decision of unconstitutionality rendered in other cases after the arbitral award, such as the violation of the rules of evidence, the incomplete deliberation, the lack of reasons, inconsistency with the reasons, or the conclusion of the declaration of intent in the disposal document, the selective arbitration clause, the establishment and termination of the so-called land trust relationship, the effective scope of the arbitration agreement or the subject of the arbitral award, the effect of the arbitral award on

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)