2012Na8930 Judgment of execution

A person shall be appointed.

Representative Directors OO00000

Attorney ○-○, et al.

B A.

○○○○

Law Firm ○○○○

[Defendant-Appellant]

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Gahap82815 (main office), 2011 Decided September 27, 2012

A.11416 (Counterclaim Judgment)

May 30, 2013

August 16, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal due to the principal lawsuit of the first instance shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part relating to the principal lawsuit shall be revoked (the defendant has filed a counterclaim at the court of first instance but filed each counterclaim

In the judgment of the lower court, the case was withdrawn.

International Commercial Conference International Arbitration Court (International Marber) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

Arbitrators' Case Number 16061/ CYK

Hexa Ka (Neil Ka Plan, CBE, QC, SBS), Cloxa Mac (Dr. Klaus Micael)

“Defendant” assessed on April 18, 201 in the Sachs and half Van Vecheder, QC)

US$ 32,601,248 paid to the Plaintiff and attorney fees and charges for arbitral awards borne by the Plaintiff

US$ 1,097, 476 US$ 76, and 2,152,446,230 shall be paid for any award which may be enforced.

The defendant served the plaintiff with a copy of the complaint of this case from April 28, 201 with respect to each of the above amounts.

6% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

D. D. D. D.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, on December 27, 199, established 100% of the Deposit Protection Corporation for the acquisition and disposal of non-performing assets by financial institutions. At the time, however, it was changed as of November 2009. The Defendant decided to ensure that the non-performing loans acquired by investing public funds to insolvent financial institutions are managed and disposed of jointly with the purchaser of the non-performing loans, and that the amount of the non-performing loans would be the maximum amount of the proceeds of collection by having 40 billion won of the non-performing loans acquired through international tendering procedure to LS SPP 3 CF 4 and 50 billion won of the principal and interest on the non-performing loans (SF 3) 20 billion won of the non-performing loans purchased by the Plaintiff 10 billion won of the non-performing loans * 300 billion won of the trust proceeds * 300 billion won of the trust proceeds * 300 billion won of the trust proceeds * 200 billion won of the Plaintiff’s 100 billion won of the assets * 30000 billion won of the trust proceeds

4) C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) is an asset management company that is entrusted by the Plaintiff with the management of securitization assets in accordance with the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

B. On December 19, 200, the Plaintiff and the Defendant*** the Fund 3 and the Plaintiff’s bond issuance and redemption of the principal and interest of the bonds (hereinafter “instant bond contract”) entered into a bond agreement with the Plaintiff on December 19, 200, and the contract set the applicable law as the New York law of the United States, and there is no provision that the pertinent law should be set as the law of the New York of the United States, and that the pertinent dispute should be resolved by arbitration.

2) The following terms, which include the above-day arbitration agreement, have been concluded between the shareholders ("Sareh Holdings"; hereinafter "Agreement") and the following provisions were entered into between the shareholders, and the defendant, **** * 3 of the Fund and the plaintiff signed at the end:

This Agreement was concluded between the defendant, the company of the Republic of Korea, the plaintiff, the company of the Republic of Korea, the company of the Republic of Korea, the plaintiff ** the fund 3 [the defendant**** the fund 3 combined with the defendant].

Article 5 Distribution Stockholders shall make the Plaintiff distribute dividends equivalent to the actual profit accrued from the disposal and disposal of the instant loan claims, taking into account the actual operating expenses of the Plaintiff, which are commercially reasonable and prudent and determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of common shares and governing laws at least every third calendar month and at least every third calendar month.

Article 10 Applicable Law; (a) Dispute Settlement; (b) Shareholders pursuant to this Agreement and this Agreement shall be subject to regulation and interpretation by the law of the jurisdiction over the establishment of the plaintiff; (c) the agents of subparagraph 3 of the Fund shall provide the defendant with his opinion that the provisions of this Agreement can be executed within the jurisdiction reasonably; ***** the fund 3 and the defendant. (b) The parties to this Agreement shall be entitled to any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Agreement or in connection with the determination of the matters covered by the objective decision under this Agreement, and thereafter (hereinafter referred to as "Disputes within this Agreement") the two arbitrators shall be appointed by the court in good faith; and (c) the appointment of the parties to the Agreement shall be made within the first time to resolve any dispute by mutual agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the final decision of the parties to the Agreement") and (d) the appointment of the arbitrators shall be made within 1) the final decision of the parties to the arbitration.

C. The Plaintiff acquired the Busan Cargo Terminal site (hereinafter referred to as the “instant site”) which is a collateral for secured claims against the Busan General Cargo Terminal Co., Ltd., which is non-performing assets purchased, and delegated the management and sale of the instant site to D Dink Investment Co., Ltd., a company established separately from C (hereinafter referred to as “D”), to acquire the instant site from 2002 to 2003 by means of court auction, etc. in order to make profits by converting the specific use area from the existing quasi-industrial area to the residential area, and disposing of it.

2) On March 29, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a new apartment construction and sales business in the instant site, and decided to complete the alteration of the specific use area, selling the instant site for KRW 135,065,00,000 to E Consulting Group (hereinafter “E”), which sought to engage in the instant apartment construction and sales business, on March 29, 2004. Separately, D decided to lend 11 billion won to D as interest free of charge for the relocation of existing terminal facilities in the instant site, and lent it to Busan General Cargo Terminal. 3) When the alteration of the use of the instant site continues to be delayed prior to the alteration of use, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with E around November 30, 204 to receive some purchase money, and then the alteration of use of the instant site to E to the Plaintiff at least 105,000,000,000 won, but the sale contract was terminated by up to 100,000,000 won, and the alteration of use of the instant site was not completed.

4) On December 1, 2004, E was loaned KRW 155 billion from F Bank Co., Ltd. and G Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. to procure the above purchase price, etc. The Plaintiff, at the time of the amendment contract on November 30, 2004, agreed to bear part of the financial cost incurred from E’s above loan.

D. On December 1, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) notified the Defendant of the process and details of the contract to modify and received the payment from E in advance; and (b) may cause a situation that the Defendant and the Defendant may incur money to be paid in E in the course of settlement after the scheduled distribution of the fund 3 or the completion of the change of the purpose of use; and (c) may cause a situation that the full amount of the purchase payment shall be returned to the Plaintiff’s Eck account due to repurchase due to the change of the purpose of use; (b) as to deposit the prepaid payment to the Defendant into the Plaintiff’s Eck account after the establishment of a pledge; and (c) the method that the sales contract becomes final and conclusive after the completion of the change of use after the Defendant’s establishment of the pledge; and (d) as to the distribution of the prepaid payment to the Defendant under subparagraph 2, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to choose to provide the Plaintiff with a written promise to immediately refund the prepaid payment amount to the Plaintiff.

3. On December 10, 2004, the Defendant would have to receive from the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 50.2 billion or equivalent US dollars as the name of the Plaintiff’s repayment of principal and interest on the Plaintiff’s SW 200 bonds ($ 77,416,86, 259; hereinafter “US”) owned by the Defendant, and the dividend of the Plaintiff’s 6,000 shares for the Plaintiff’s 6,000 shares. (Provided, That since the interest on the 2000 bonds was prior to withholding, the actual amount received is below the same amount).

4. The above amount that the Defendant is scheduled to receive from the Plaintiff is the financial resources of the purchase price to be sold and received by the Plaintiff pursuant to the sales contract concluded with E and D. The Defendant is well aware of the fact that all or part of the above purchase price can be returned to the purchaser under the above sales contract due to the settlement of the purchase price pursuant to the above sales contract, the rescission or redemption of the contract due to nonperformance of obligations under the above sales contract, etc.

6. Accordingly, in the event that the Plaintiff pays 50.2 billion won to the Defendant and then returns all or part of the above sales price to the buyer under the above sales contract pursuant to paragraph (4) above, upon the Plaintiff’s request for return, the Defendant promises to refund, in foreign currency, the amount equivalent to the above sales price to be paid in full or in part (except for the amount withheld from interest on bonds 200 billion won, to the extent of the amount actually received by the Defendant, excluding the amount withheld from interest on bonds 50.2 billion won) within two weeks from the date of the request without any objection.

3) The Plaintiff’s request for the choice of the Plaintiff on December 1, 2004 or the instant promise does not contain any content regarding governing law or arbitration.

4) On December 10, 2004, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant totaling KRW 50.2 billion under the name of shareholder dividend out of the above purchase price, including KRW 21,404, KRW 651,51, and KRW 28,795, KRW 348, and KRW 490 under the name of principal and interest of bonds (hereinafter referred to as “sale price in advance”).

E. On December 28, 2004, an application for approval of change of use of the instant site was rejected on the failure of change of use and dispute 1 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was rejected.

12. 31. Upon notifying the Defendant of the possibility of payment or redemption of the settlement amount, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant on the same day that the terms and conditions of the sales contract and E would reduce the sales amount to KRW 103 billion, and did not change the use by the extended deadline, but would not change the use by the extended deadline, the Plaintiff would bear the additional financial costs of E arising until the change of use is completed.

2) On May 21, 2007, the Plaintiff anticipated that the ownership of the instant site offered as security for loan obligations is transferred to a third party and it would be difficult to maintain the sales contract as it is, because the use of the instant site was not changed, it is difficult to obtain approval for change of purpose of use, and that E would not repay the loan until maturity, and thus, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the total amount of advance payment pursuant to the instant promise. Accordingly, on May 30, 2007, the Defendant would return the advance payment to the court for the purpose of refund of the purchase price, and that the procedures for cancellation of the sales contract and registration of ownership transfer should be followed without fail due to filing an application for prohibition of disposal of the instant site.

3) The Plaintiff sought several measures with respect to the disposal of the instant site, and decided to sell the instant site after acquiring the ownership of the instant site under D’s name by acquiring the shares of KRW 12 billion, and decided to hold a board of directors on June 8, 2007 to obtain approval. The Plaintiff on June 6, 2007.

7. Although the Defendant notified the Defendant of the holding of the board of directors, the Defendant was unable to submit detailed data to the Plaintiff, and the notification was delayed, making it difficult for the Plaintiff to physically attend the board of directors’ meeting, notified that “it cannot be accepted if there is a resolution disadvantageous to the Plaintiff as to the entire Plaintiff among the provisions of the resolution of the board of directors,” and the two directors of the Defendant did not attend the board of directors. However, on June 8, 2007, three directors of the Plaintiff’s board of directors present at the meeting of the Plaintiff, which was held on June 8, 207, approved the acquisition of E

4) In order to raise the above stock purchase price, the Plaintiff borrowed USD 16.5 million from D on June 20, 2007 **** 3 of the Fund 15 million from D on June 20, 207, and allowed *** 3 of the Fund to offset the Plaintiff’s obligation to return dividends with the above loan bond.

On June 22, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) disposed of the instant site by E, D, and C; and (b) repaid the loans secured by the instant site; and (c) agreed to bear the Plaintiff’s expenses incurred in the process of sale, in the event that the sale price of the instant site is insufficient to repay E’s loan obligations due to the purchase price of the instant site.

5) On June 27, 2007, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to explain the reasons why the acquisition of the instant site through the acquisition of shares via the acquisition of shares was not scheduled in the initial sales contract, and requested the Plaintiff to suspend the sale of the instant site and provide the evidentiary materials and information by not later than the specific vindication. The Plaintiff, on October 22, 2007, notified the Defendant of the process of the suspension of the sale of the instant site and the due date for the repayment of the E’s loan obligations, sent answers to the Plaintiff that it is difficult to suspend the sale procedure unless there is any other alternative, and sent relevant materials on October 25, 2007. However, the Defendant demanded the suspension of the progress of the said procedure.

6) On November 1, 2007, H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) sold E stocks in KRW 160 billion, and H would pay in cash KRW 1 billion, and H would take over KRW 159 billion out of E’s remaining debt 1 and KRW 81 billion. Of E’s remaining debt, the remainder of KRW 22 billion out of E’s remaining debt 1 and KRW 81 billion shall be E ** 3, and the Plaintiff would take the responsibility for payment.

7) On November 6, 2007, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the sale of E shares H and demanded the Defendant to present his opinion on the distribution and settlement of final losses. On November 14, 2007, the Defendant did not provide specific explanation or data despite the fact that the process among them was unilaterally promoted by the Plaintiff, and the purchase of E shares was a transaction of an exceptional structure, and the Defendant is a public fund recovery agency, and the Defendant demanded the Defendant to immediately suspend the sale of E shares to H.

8) On June 2, 2008, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return 3,352,06 USD 50,000 (per 34,39,501,425 won at the exchange rate of May 30, 2008) equivalent to 33,352,06, equivalent to 50% of the expenses incurred in the process of purchase of E shares and sale to H, in accordance with the instant commitment, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the same date ****** 3* the Fund 3. However, the Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s demand to return the site of this case for a verification of the process of purchase, repurchase, and resale.

F. On January 16, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had the obligation to pay for the sale of the instant site in accordance with the instant undertaking, and filed an application for arbitration with the ICC arbitral tribunal (number 16061/ CYK), and on April 3, 2009, the Defendant raised an objection to the jurisdiction, but the ICC arbitral tribunal continued to conduct arbitration in accordance with Article 6(2) of the ICC Arbitration Rules on April 16, 2009. (2) The ICC arbitral tribunal appointed the Plaintiff as an arbitrator on behalf of the Plaintiff, and confirmed the Plaintiff as an arbitrator, and the presiding arbitrator was appointed in Japan under the co-ownership of the said arbitrator, and the CIC has been conducting the arbitration proceedings.

3) During the arbitral proceedings, the Defendant argued that there was no arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that there was no jurisdiction over the dispute of the instant case and that the requirements for return under the instant promise were not satisfied. However, on April 18, 2011, the arbitral tribunal was obligated to pay USD 32,601,248, equivalent to the Defendant’s share of the Plaintiff’s expenses, out of the Plaintiff’s expenses incurred in selling the instant site in accordance with the instant promise, to the Plaintiff. In addition, the arbitral tribunal rendered an arbitral award that the Defendant is obligated to pay USD 2,152,46,230, and 822,476, and USD 76, and KRW 275,000,00,000, which was paid to the ICC due to the Plaintiff’s fees and incidental expenses, such as attorney’s fees, and the arbitrator’s fees and expenses (hereinafter “instant arbitral award”).

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 through 10, 15 through 19, 21 through 28, 32 through 35, and 43 (where there are various numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's statements in its 1 through 10, 14 through 19, 21, and 23, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. On the premise that the instant arbitral clause naturally extends to the instant arbitral award, the enforcement of the instant arbitral award should be permitted pursuant to Article 39 of the Arbitration Act and Article 3 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter referred to as the "New York Convention"), and further, the Defendant asserts that the instant arbitral award, which ordered payment in the instant arbitral award, is obliged to pay damages for delay from the day following the delivery of the written arbitral award of each of the instant cases.

B. Defendant 1 asserts that the instant arbitration clause does not extend to the instant case, which is a dispute related to the instant agreement, and that there is no arbitration agreement concerning the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff is not a party to the instant arbitration clause.

3. Determination

A. On February 8, 1973, Korea ratified the New York Convention under the reservation declaration that this Convention shall apply only to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made within the territory of other contracting parties only in cases where a dispute over commercial relations under the laws of the Republic of Korea is a dispute over the said Convention. The New York Convention has entered into force on May 9, 1973 as a treaty No. 471, and Article 39(1) of the Arbitration Act provides that the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards subject to the New York Convention shall be governed by the said Convention, and it is apparent that the dispute in this case is a dispute over commercial relations under the laws of the Republic of Korea according to the above basic facts. Accordingly, the New York Convention shall apply to the enforcement of the arbitral award in this case.

2) Article 2(1) of the New York Convention provides that "each Contracting State shall approve in writing agreement between the parties to the agreement to request arbitration in connection with a certain legal relationship regarding matters which could be resolved by arbitration, whether or not, in terms of a contractual nature or not." Paragraph (2) provides that "any written agreement" includes an agreement between the parties to the agreement, signed or exchanged, or included in the exchange of letters or transfers. Article 4(1)(b) of the New York Union provides that "The parties to the agreement shall submit the original copy of the agreement provided for in Article 2 to obtain recognition and enforcement of the award. The provision of Article 4(1) provides that if there is a dispute between the parties as to the existence or content of the agreement on arbitration, proof of such agreement shall be limited to the documents provided for in Article 4(1) of the New York Convention, which are exclusively subject to the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da98109, Dec. 10, 2004). 209.

On the other hand, Article 5(1) of the New York Convention provides that the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused when a party to the agreement under Article 2 was incompetent under the law applicable to him, or when there is no such agreement under the law of the country where the award was issued, or in the absence of any such law or designation, under the law of the country where the award was issued, and where the award is not provided for in Article 2 (a) or is related to a dispute which does not fall within the scope of the deposit, or where the award contains any decision which deviates from the scope of the deposit of the arbitral tribunal (c) at the request of the party to which the award is invoked disadvantageously, and where the party submits such evidence to the competent authority of the country where the

In light of the provisions of the New York Convention and the legal principles thereon, the Plaintiff seeking an execution judgment of a foreign arbitral award shall prove the existence of the arbitration agreement in writing if the Defendant, who is the party concerned, contests the existence of the arbitration agreement, by means of submitting the document. If such a document is submitted, it shall be interpreted that the Defendant may prevent the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award by proving that the arbitration agreement based on the document is null and void or that the arbitral award is not related to a dispute which is the subject of the arbitration agreement.

B. Whether an arbitration agreement exists in the dispute of this case

1) The law applicable to the formation and validity of an arbitration agreement shall be governed by the law to which the parties have designated as the governing law of the arbitration agreement, and shall not be designated, in accordance with Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention.

The arbitral award shall be based on the country where the award was made, but it is reasonable to deem that the designation of such party includes an implied designation. Even if the parties did not specify the governing law of the arbitration agreement, if the parties explicitly or implicitly stipulated the governing law of the principal contract including the arbitration clause, barring any special circumstance, the parties intended to designate the governing law of the principal contract as the governing law of the arbitration clause. However, if the governing law of the principal contract is determined by objective connection under the Private International Act as the governing law of the principal contract because the parties did not implicitly designate the governing law of the principal contract, it is reasonable to deem the governing law of

2) According to the above facts and the plaintiff's argument in the arbitration procedure, the dispute in this case concerns whether the defendant is obligated to pay expenses related to the sale of the site in this case to the defendant pursuant to the contract in this case and there is a dispute about the interpretation and application of the contract in this case. However, as the contract in this case itself does not have the governing law and it is difficult to view the contract in this case as a partial modification contract between the shareholders in this case or a contract which is naturally scheduled under the contract in this case between shareholders in this case, as seen later, the governing law on the interpretation of the contract in this case is, in principle, the law governing the interpretation of the contract in this case is the law which is most closely related to the agreement in this case under Article 26 of the Private International Act. Since the contract in this case is contents that the defendant, a Korean corporation located in the Republic of Korea, would return the purchase price in Korean currency, the law closely related to this issue is the law of the Republic of Korea, and in this case, the governing law governing the conclusion of the arbitration agreement in this case is the law of Japan law.

The instant undertaking itself and the Plaintiff’s notice of December 1, 2004, which served as the basis for the Defendant to issue the instant undertaking, do not have a separate arbitration agreement. The purchase price that the Defendant received when preparing and delivering the instant undertaking is the total amount of KRW 50.2 billion, including the shareholder’s dividend amount of KRW 21,404,651,51,510, and the principal and interest of the bonds, KRW 28,795, 348, and KRW 490, and the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant, and ** * 3 of the Fund, concluded the instant corporate bond agreement on December 19, 200 concerning the redemption of the principal and interest of the bonds issued by the Plaintiff and the redemption of the principal and interest thereof, and concluded the agreement between the shareholders as to the rights and obligations of the Plaintiff as the shareholder.

Therefore, the bond contract of this case and the bond contract of this case are separate contracts between the Plaintiff and the shareholders because they do not have any provision regarding exclusive arbitration unlike the contract of this case, and the applicable law thereof are different contracts between the Plaintiff and the shareholders. It is reasonable to view that the principal and interest of the bond of this case are paid in accordance with the bond contract of this case between shareholders, and that the Plaintiff may issue securitization bond-type securities ( de factoburance) to shareholders under Article 6 (f) of the contract of this case, and even if Article 2 (e) of the Act provides that the principal and interest of the bond of this case and the bond contract of this case can be paid to shareholders, the agreement of this case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as a basic contract including the contract of this case, because it is difficult to interpret the contract of this case and the contract of this case as to the payment of principal and interest of the bond of this case between the Plaintiff and the shareholders of this case, and there is no provision regarding the change of the principal and interest of the bond of this case* the agreement between the Plaintiff and the company 10.

However, the Plaintiff asserted and proved the existence of the instant arbitration clause under the contract between the shareholders of the instant case and fails to prove the existence of a written arbitration agreement under the instant promise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the enforcement of the instant arbitral award is without merit without further review.

3) Furthermore, we would like to examine, on the assumption that the instant arbitration clause stipulated in the instant agreement shall apply to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on the instant agreement is an amendment agreement between the shareholders of this case or the agreement between the shareholders of this case was scheduled.

In this case, it is reasonable to view that the governing law on the establishment of an arbitration agreement is the law of the community, which is the governing law of the principal contract explicitly designated by the parties in the agreement between shareholders of this case, the principal contract. The meaning of "the document is delivered to a reasonable person with reasonable knowledge that the person dealing with the document can reasonably understand (............)" is the intention of the party concerned (..........) customarily. The contract is interpreted in accordance with the principle.

In light of the following circumstances, the instant arbitration clause cannot be said to apply to both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, even in accordance with such principles of interpretation of the State of Bada.

In other words, the instant contract between the shareholders is, in principle, stipulated the rights and obligations between the Defendant, the shareholder,**** the Fund 3, but Article 6 provides for the Plaintiff’s obligations related thereto, and the first head of the instant contract between the shareholders stated that the instant contract was concluded between the Defendant,*****, 3 and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s signature at the end can be acknowledged as having participated in the contract as a party to the contract.

However, although the arbitration agreement is incorporated into an arbitration clause under a principal contract, it has independence that does not affect the validity of the arbitration clause (Article 17(1) of the Arbitration Act). This is equally recognized in the Republic of Korea (Article 17(2) of the Arbitration Act). Even if a single contract is a single contract, all of the provisions do not have effect on the whole of the parties and it is possible to agree that the contract clause has no effect on the specific parties. Thus, it can be distinguished between the parties to the contract between the parties to the contract of this case and the party to whom the arbitration clause of this case has no effect on the specific parties. Article 10(1)(a) of the arbitration clause, which includes the arbitration clause of this case, uses the expression that the rights and obligations of the "shareholders" are the rights and obligations of the parties, but (b) the parties (which does not define the parties in the contract between the shareholders of this case) are not resolved by an agreement, so it does not appear that the term "parties are defined in the arbitration procedure."

One of the two arbitrators is the defendant's appointment and the other one is the defendant*** the fund 3 is the third arbitrator, and the third arbitrator is the party's appointment and the plaintiff can appoint the arbitrator. It does not provide that the third party who is the opposing party to the arbitration has the right to appoint the arbitrator, while granting only two of them and granting the remaining one arbitrator's appointment right to appoint the arbitrator. It cannot be understood in light of the general trade norms, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's appointment right was omitted in the plaintiff's appointment right while making an express agreement on the arbitrator's appointment right as above. The parties' expression cannot be expressed as the parties as the terms of general use in the contract, and it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff and the other party's appointment right to appoint the arbitrator's appointment right are not valid in light of the New York Convention * even if the plaintiff and the party's appointment are explicitly expressed in the arbitration agreement * in light of the facts that the arbitration agreement of this case is valid in the arbitration agreement* even if there is no possibility that the plaintiff is an arbitrator's appointment.

Therefore, even if the arbitration clause of this case also applies to the letter of commitment of this case, the plaintiff is still not a party to the arbitration clause of this case, and the existence of the arbitration agreement cannot be acknowledged. Thus, with respect to the dispute of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, the arbitration clause of this case shall be deemed to be concerning the dispute not falling under the scope of the arbitration agreement, or the execution of the arbitral award of this case shall not be permitted.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the arbitral award of this case is a dispute which does not prove the existence of the arbitration agreement or does not fall under the scope of the arbitration agreement, and there is a ground to refuse enforcement of the arbitral award of this case.

The plaintiff's claim for the enforcement of the ruling is without merit and without merit, and the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay, which is based on the premise that the enforcement of the arbitral award in this case is allowed, is also without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is just, and since the judgment of the court of first instance omitted the judgment of the court of first instance, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the burden of total costs of lawsuit (the costs of lawsuit as to the first lawsuit and the costs of appeal) pursuant to Article 212 (3) of the

Judges Yoon Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)

Date of inquiry of judge;

Judge Guo- Provision

1) The Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Management Officer's Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Management Officer's Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Officer's Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Officer's Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 3. 3. 2. 3. 3.2. 2. 3.2. 3.2. 3.2. 1.

Pursuant to the precedent of the Supreme Court of 2010 [2010] SC (Daa) 34 Civil ( July 5, 2010), (No. 1)

[Reference]

2) SNE v. Jctiled Limited [190] XVIC Ybk 384 (Evidence A 1)