1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the lease-based legal entity that operates the shipping agency business, etc., and the rehabilitation debtor, Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Hanjin Shipping”) is the Korean legal entity that is engaged in the shipping business, etc.

B. On January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the Hanjin Shipping to provide the Plaintiff with agency services to the ships operated by the Hanjin Shipping in the leasing State (hereinafter “instant agency contract”). The Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the purport that Hanjin Shipping will pay agency expenses to the Plaintiff.

C. On September 1, 2016, Hanjin Shipping was ordered to commence rehabilitation at the Seoul Rehabilitation Court (2016 Gohap 10021), and was declared bankrupt at the same court on February 17, 2017 (2017Hahap15), and the Defendant is appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping.

On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming the payment of the above amount against A, who was the administrator of Hanjin Shipping according to the above order of rehabilitation commencement, by asserting that Hanjin Shipping was obligated to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff under the instant agency contract, and thereafter, the Defendant taken over the instant lawsuit appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping following the above declaration of bankruptcy.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. As to the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the Plaintiff’s agency expenses under the instant agency contract concluded between the Plaintiff and Jinjin Shipping on the summary of the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits, the Defendant’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed contrary to the arbitration agreement stipulated in the instant agency contract.

(b) the formation of the arbitration agreement and its validity judgment; 1) Article 36(2)1 of the Arbitration Act; and the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards; and