Mic chip chip (Attorney No-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The administrator of the same mining pulp corporation (Law Firm Cheongat, Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant) who is the administrator of the same mining pulp corporation.

December 1, 2005

Ulsan District Court Decision 98Gahap8505 delivered on July 31, 2003

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the instant lawsuits, the part seeking confirmation of reorganization claims and voting rights equivalent to the same amount of KRW 16,216,99,289 shall be dismissed.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The plaintiff shall confirm that he has a reorganization claim of 28,251,372,00 won and a voting right equivalent to the same amount as the reorganization claim of the same reorganization company and the same amount.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff seeking confirmation below shall be revoked. The plaintiff shall confirm that the reorganization company has a reorganization claim of KRW 8,951,305,640 and a voting right equivalent to the same amount.

Defendant: The part against Defendant in the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revocation part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, evidence 6, evidence 9, evidence 10, evidence 12, evidence 13, evidence 15, evidence 16, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 5, evidence 2, evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 3, evidence 5, evidence 2, evidence 1, evidence 5, evidence 2, evidence 3, evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 5, evidence 2, evidence 3, evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 5, evidence 5, evidence 57, evidence 5, evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 5, evidence 2, evidence 5, evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 5, evidence 2, evidence 1, evidence 3, evidence 2, evidence 5, evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 5, evidence 1, evidence 7, evidence 7, evidence 1, evidence 7, evidence 7-1, evidence 2, evidence 73-1, evidence 7

(a) Conclusion of a long-term supply contract for hard chips;

(1) The reorganization company incorporated and operated the same chip Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dong Seap”) as a producer of boom chemical pulp on a domestic date, and decided to directly produce and supply chip in the United States in November 3, 1993 while the tree sculptures (hereinafter referred to as “chip”) is dependent on the import from the land in the United States, etc. and investing USD 10,000,000 in the Almamaroro in the United States in 190, and managing it as a local subsidiary (hereinafter referred to as “D.P.I.), but it completed the failure due to difficulties in purchasing raw timber necessary for the manufacture of chip, etc.

(2) On February 13, 1992, the non-party 2 entered into a contract between T.K.T (T.T.T.; hereinafter “T.K.T”) and the East Seap to supply an annual 60,000 tons of chips to the East Seap from 1993 to 2002, and accordingly, supplied chips to the East Seap, the non-party 2 was proposed to accept 300,000 tons of chips each year from the East Seap to 10 years in November 1993, which would reduce the supply of chips to 10,000 tons of chips each year from the East Seap to 10,000 tons.

(3) On December 193, 1993, Nonparty 2 established the Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), except as otherwise expressly referred to, Nonparty 2, T.K.T, and Plaintiff. However, it is difficult to conclude a business facility acquisition contract without entering into a specific chip monopoly supply contract, and thus, Nonparty 2 demanded to enter into a prior chip monopoly supply contract on behalf of the Plaintiff in East Seap as it is difficult to enter into the business facility acquisition contract. Accordingly, on January 22, 1994, Nonparty 2 took over D.P. I. 10,00,000 on behalf of the Plaintiff with the East Seap, and first, written 5,00,000,000 for the factory and business facility of D.I.D., and written 5,190,000,0000,000 won in Korean (hereinafter referred to as “the chip supply contract”).

Article 1 (Granting Exclusive Supply Rights)

1.1. It shall grant the Plaintiff the right to exclusively supply the processed chips (hereinafter referred to as “unnam Busan chips”) by using raw trees produced in the area in the south of the United States under the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement to the Plaintiff during the contract period.

1.2.The exclusive supply right shall not prevent the same sea pulse from purchasing from a third party products other than the chips of the South East and South chips.

Article 2 (Minimum Purchase Quantity and Supply Amount)

2.1.1. The same sea pulse will be purchased from the Plaintiff at least 230,00 tons of chips of the first year from the first year beginning after the conclusion of this Agreement to the end of this Agreement, and 300,000 tons of chips of the second year from the date of shipment, and the Plaintiff shall also supply the same sea pulse at least 230,000 tons for the first year and 300,000 U.S. chips each year after the second year in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement.

2.2. In a case where the same sea pulse purchases all the minimum purchase amount from the plaintiff in a particular year, it may freely purchase the same chips from a third party other than the plaintiff in the corresponding year. In addition, where the same sea pulse receives written notification from the plaintiff on the occurrence of force majeure under Article 11 from the plaintiff, it may freely purchase the same chips from a third party from the date of receipt of such notification until the plaintiff notifies in writing that the cause of force majeure has ceased to exist.

Article 3 (Price for Exclusive Right to Supply)

3.1. In consideration of the exclusive right to supply, the Plaintiff must supply to the same sea pulse at a low price until the total amount of the mutual aid amount reaches USD 5,190,000 by deducting USD 2.48 per ton from the supply price stipulated in Articles 5 from the four-year shipment after the conclusion of this contract.

3.2. The Parties shall confirm, at each time of shipment, in writing, the amount supplied at each time of shipment.

Article 5 (Supply Price)

5.1The supply price of chips under this Agreement shall be the terms of freight content in the port of Ulsan (C&F) and shall be determined annually by mutual agreement between the Parties on the basis of the following:

5.2. 양 당사자는 공급가격을 결정함에 있어 당해 연도 동해펄프의 구입예상물량, 해상운임 추세 등을 고려하여 당해 연도에 스캇 페이퍼(Scatt Paper)사와 웨어 하우저(Wayerhaenser)사가 미국 모빌(Mobil) 및 모어헤드(Morehead) 지역에서 일본 및 대만지역으로 수출하는 본선인도조건(F.O.B.) 가격의 톤당 평균가를 기준으로 하되, 반드시 1달러를 공제한 가격 이하이어야 한다.

5.3. If the Parties fail to agree on the supply price for the year concerned by January 31 of each year, the Parties shall appoint one person with at least 10 years of work experience in the field of chip business until February 5 of each year as an arbitrator and notify the other party in writing of his name, work experience, etc., and shall again appoint one person with the same qualification until February 10 of each other, as the chair, by mutual agreement: Provided, That if two arbitrators appointed by the Parties fail to appoint the chair by February 10 of each other, the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board shall appoint the chair upon the request of either Party. The three arbitrators shall determine the supply price for the following year in accordance with the principle of majority majority within 10 days from the date on which the chair is appointed or designated, and the decision shall bind both Parties.

5.4.The temporary supply price for the year immediately preceding shall be applied until the supply price for the year is determined, and when the supply price for the year is determined, mutual settlement shall be made for transactions for the year immediately preceding that year; and

Article 6 (Orders and Terms of Payment)

6.1. The order sheet stating the quantity, size, date of shipment, port of arrival, etc. from the date of shipment shall be notified to the Plaintiff at least 50 days before the date of shipment, and the Plaintiff shall be notified in writing as to whether it has accepted it within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notification. However, the Plaintiff may not refuse three consecutive orders from the same pulse at intervals of not less than 30 days.

6.2. The same sea pulse shall, within 10 days from the date of being notified by the Plaintiff of its intention to accept the order form of the same sea pulp, open and deliver an impossible letter of credit not to cancel the order amount in the future of the Plaintiff.

Article 7 (Term of Contract)

This Agreement shall become effective for a period of ten years from the date of this Agreement, unless terminated at the early stage in accordance with Article VIII below.

Article 8 (Termination of Contracts)

8.1. In the event that the Plaintiff does not supply at least 80 per cent of the minimum supply for three consecutive years, it may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the Plaintiff from January 1 of the year following the corresponding year to January 30 of the year in which the Plaintiff violated the proviso of Article 6.1. In addition, if the Plaintiff violated the said proviso, it may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice within 120 days from the date of the violation.

8.2. The Plaintiff may terminate this contract by giving written notice from January 1 to 30 of the year following the corresponding year to the same sea pulse, in case where the same sea pulse does not purchase more than 80 per cent of the minimum purchase volume for two consecutive years.

8.3.If a Party is dissolved or declared bankrupt, the other Party may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other Party.

Article 9 (Effect of Termination of Contract)

9.1.1. The reasons of Articles 8.1 and 8.3, i.e., when the contract is terminated due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall pay from USD 5,190,000 less the total amount deducted from USD 5,190,000 to be paid in accordance with Article 3.1, within 60 days from the date of termination.

9.2.8.2. the reasons of Articles 8.2 and 8.3., i.e., where the contract is terminated due to causes attributable to the same pulse, from 2,930,00 tons to 2,930 tons of the same pulse, the amount equivalent to USD 1.77 per ton shall be paid to the Plaintiff within 60 days from the date of termination for the remaining quantity after deducting the total quantity purchased from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff after this contract is concluded.

9.3 If the contract has been terminated under the foregoing 9.2.2, the consideration for the exclusive right to supply set out in 3.1. shall be settled by settling the amount deductible until termination of the contract and offset by mutual agreement between the amount payable in 9.2. above.

Article 10 (Offer of Security)

10.1. The Plaintiff, on its own account, shall issue a certificate of payment guarantee issued by a financial institution from the same sea pulse in order to ensure the obligation to pay the money to be borne under the above 9.1.1.

10.2. In the event that the Plaintiff terminates this contract due to its own cause, it shall issue to the Plaintiff a payment guarantee certificate, a quality bill, or a performance guarantee insurance policy issued by a financial institution in order to secure a monetary obligation to be borne pursuant to the above 9.2.

Article 12 (Arbitration)

Arbitration in connection with this contract shall be conducted in accordance with the Korean Law and the Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and general matters shall be in accordance with international practices.

·Annexed Agreements

3. The specifications, inspections, loading and unloading standards, etc. of supplied goods shall be determined as follows:

(a) Standards and quality;

1) Egregs: 32m to 5m Max, 3.2m to 2% Max

(c) Loading conditions;

The port of loading and the designation of a ship: The plaintiff shall submit the port of loading chips and the details of ships to the same sea pulse, and load them after approval of the same sea pulse.

(4) Thereafter, on January 25, 1994, the Plaintiff entered into a D.P.I. business facility acquisition contract with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid USD 5,000,000 as the acquisition price in the East Sea Pulp around the end of February 1994.

(b) Preparation of an English contract;

(1) On October 193, 1993, Already, the owner of the factory site, filed a lawsuit against D.P.I.O., seeking the cancellation of the contract for the transfer of the business facility between the plaintiff and D.P.I., and filed a lawsuit against D.I. for the compensation of overdue rent and the lost profit equivalent to D.P.I., and thereafter, D.P.I. and the same L.I. on March 1994 against the U.S. court after each of the above cases was pending in the U.S. court after the completion of the contract for provisional disposition seeking the cancellation of the contract for the transfer of the business facility and seeking the prohibition of the transfer of the business facility.

(2) On April 8, 1994, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the bank all documents except for the long-term supply contract between the Plaintiff and the chip to obtain a loan for operating funds for new factories and funds for purchasing standing trees from the bank in the United States. This is because the submission of the above contract is likely to act disadvantageously in the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the echip, and the echip will not be accompanied by the long-term supply contract for the most important chip, but the bank will not attempt to start the document review. It is intended to consider that the above lawsuit would not cause any more damage to the Plaintiff. It is intended to give consideration to the Plaintiff. The facsimile received from Nonparty 3, the vice president in charge of the Plaintiff's shipment and bank NA (NEGO) contract, namely, if there is any other relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, it shall be voluntaryly reported to the court under way other than the above echip's 00,000,000,0000 won bond contract.

(3) Accordingly, as of March 10, 1994, the date of its preparation prepared and delivered an English (English) agreement (English) agreement with the Plaintiff as of March 10, 1994. Of these, the difference between the Korean contract and the Korean language contract was deleted: ① Articles 3 (Payment for Exclusive Right), 9 (Effect of Termination of Contract), and 10 (Provision of Security) of the Korean contract are deleted; ② The minimum purchase quantity of 300,000 tons in the Korean contract (minimum purchase and supply volume) has been reduced to 200,000 tons (English contract 2.1.1.), the calculation of the supply price was decided by mutual agreement between the parties in consideration of the purchase quantity of the East Sea Pulc in the corresponding year, the change in maritime freight rates, and the supply price was not agreed by the representative director until January 31 of each year; ③ the price of the supply price was 40,000 tons or more in English; ③ the alteration of the supply price was 304m or more of the Max agreement.

(4) On March 29, 1994, the Plaintiff and the East Sea Pulp entered into a bill exchange agreement pursuant to Article 10 (Provision of Security) of the Korean Contract, and exchanged promissory notes in blank with each other (No. 10 of the evidence No. 18).

(c) Trade of chips between the same sea pulse and the plaintiff;

(1) Form of transaction

The chip transaction between the same Lulp and the Plaintiff was in the form of producing and supplying original trees if the same Lulp had ordered the Plaintiff according to the manufacture plan of pulp until April 194. However, from that date, if the same Lulp and the Plaintiff agreed in advance to determine the supply plan and made orders based on the supply plan, the Plaintiff was in the form of producing and supplying the chip in accordance with that plan. The payment was made in the form of producing and supplying the chip in accordance with that plan. The price payment was made in the form of a letter of credit, if the same Lulp had been made in advance two to three months prior to the shipment of chip and the Plaintiff had been made in the form of settling the price with the credit or revised credit. The price payment was made in the way that the Lulp and the Plaintiff agreed on the supply price pursuant to Article 5.1, and 5.2,

(2) The progress of the transaction in 1994

(A) In 194, as indicated in the “the details of the supply of chips in 1994”, the same chips were each supplied by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, 169,939 tons in total, verben Co., Ltd., a third party, verben Corporation, and Mitish Co., Ltd., and each supply of chips listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the supplied quantities from a third party was already concluded prior to the conclusion of the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the same chip.

(B) On April 25, 1994, he opened a credit to the Plaintiff for the volume to arrive at the end of June 1994 after loading on or around May 25, 1994. However, the Plaintiff submitted a plan for the supply of a portion of 194 as of May 2, 1994 to the same pulse as of May 2, 1994, and the Plaintiff did not delete the expected shipment volume and not actually supply it on or around May 1994, and on May 9, 1994, the same pulse purchased chips of 19,50 tons from the French company with the consent of a third party for emergency purchase from the Plaintiff on May 7, 1994 with a view to preventing the shortage of stock.

(C) The plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase in full the amount of 230,000 tons of the agreed amount of 194, including the amount already supplied by the plaintiff as of May 31, 1994 (A33 No. 1). The plaintiff submitted a supply plan to supply an additional amount of 180,000 tons to the same pulse with the official document dated June 9, 1994, but thereafter, submitted the supply plan to supply an additional amount of 180,000 tons until the end of the same year. However, each official document dated July 6, 1994, July 16, 1994, and September 7, 1994 (record No. 868, 869, 870 pages) as of September 7, 1994 (the total amount supplied to the same pulse in 196,930 tons as seen earlier.

(3) The course of the transaction in the year 1995

(A) On December 27, 1994, the Plaintiff submitted a plan to supply the same sea pulse with a total of 80,000 tons every four times on January 1, 1995, and February 5, 1995, to load a total of 20,000 tons on the same sea pulse, and requested to load a ship on the same sea pulse. However, the Plaintiff actually supplied only 39,737 tons in total as shown in the “the supply details of chips in the year 1995” as stated in the “the supply details of chips in the year 1995,” and among them, the shipment on January 5, 1995, was high-quality and low-quality Chulve trees (chips).

(B) On April 4, 1995, the Plaintiff submitted a plan to supply a sum of 234,000 tons in the year 195, including the amount of time supply as of January 1, 1995, and February 2, 1995, with the official document (record 886 pages) of the same year from May 4, 1995 to the end of the year, and submitted a plan to supply the same amount of 234,00 tons, including the amount of time supply as of February 4, 1995.

(C) On May 2, 1995, the Plaintiff submitted the second half of 195 supply plan to supply only 213,397 tons, including the ship shipped on July 14, 1995 and the ship's scheduled shipment on August 21, 1995, although the Plaintiff obtained the approval of the supply plan from the East Sea Pulp on April 4, 1995, it was impossible to pass through the East Sea Pulp on August 21, 1995 to arrive at the port by the end of September 195, 195, which was the time required from the East Sea Pulp.

(D) Accordingly, on July 18, 1995, he pointed out the problems regarding the supply plan as of July 14, 1995 to the Plaintiff. On July 19, 195, he notified the Plaintiff that it would be inevitable to purchase chips from a third party because the stable supply of chips would be interrupted. On July 20, 1995, after the Plaintiff’s conference, he entered into a contract with the third party on the purchase of chips from the floor beer, etc. ( Accordingly, on October 25, 1995, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the ridge and ridge to substitute the above chips from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 200, but the Plaintiff supplied the 90,000 tons of chips from a third party on the floor beer, etc. ( Accordingly, on October 25, 1995, the Plaintiff entered into the contract with the 1950,000 tons of ship.

(E) On September 1, 1995, the Plaintiff submitted a revised supply plan to supply a total of 126,220 tons in the latter part of the latter part of the first half of the 1995, with the official document (Evidence A57) dated September 1, 1995. However, in fact, the Plaintiff supplied a total of 106,762 tons in the same sea-pulpulse and supplied a total of 106,762 tons in the same amount, which eventually led to the supply of only 197,533 tons in the agreement supply of 300,000 tons

(4) Progress of the 1996 transaction

(A) On September 22, 1995, the East Sea Pulp used the K-Line ship over 10-11 times in the year 1996 in order to solve the problems with respect to the ship first, and 4-5 vehicles among them were used in Wulst Rar, and the amount of supply in the year 1996 was 30,000 tons per annum (the same as A47 evidence, B No. 13 evidence).

(B) On December 6, 1995, he again agreed that the annual supply amount of 270,000 tons shall be reduced to 270,000 tons through a meeting with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff submitted the supply plan on December 8, 1995, stating that “A certificate of chip chip supply plan of 15 times per year in 1996” as shown in attached Table 1995, as stated in the “B chip supply plan of 275,50 tons”. On the first half of the year 1996, the price of chip reduced according to the decline in the price of the chip, and accordingly, the freight rate was reduced to the extent that the procurement of the chip was far earlier due to the decline in the maritime freight.

(C) On January 10, 1996, the Plaintiff loaded chips 23,613 tons not included in the supply plan as of December 8, 1995, and voluntarily depart from the port, and notified it to the same sea pulse with the official document dated January 12, 1996, and the same sea pulse was not scheduled for the above shipment through the official document as of January 17, 1996 (record 912 pages) and notified the Plaintiff that it is inevitable for the ocean-going air to take charge of the Plaintiff’s physical rental fees and other costs.

(D) On January 14, 1996, pursuant to the supply plan as of December 8, 1995, the Plaintiff again loaded 18,348 tons listed in the table No. 2 of "Island supply details of chips in the year 1996" in the attached Form No. 1996, and notified on February 2, 1995, the plan for supply of Lysp in the same sea area as of January 196 (Evidence No. 15-1 of the evidence No. 15) was inevitable due to the shortage of funds due to the Plaintiff's stock in the same sea area due to the shortage of funds from the Plaintiff's stock in the same sea area. The Plaintiff did not inform the plan for supply on February 12, 1995 that the scheduled shipment portion of Lysyling (Cortesia Ducking) in the supply plan as of March 5, 1995.

(E) As of January 25, 1996, the same sea pulse explained the circumstances in which the international pulp price has decline from the quarter of April 1995 and the domestic pulp demand has been reduced, and the plaintiff already held a quantity exceeding an appropriate quantity in order to prevent the problem in the procurement of chips suffered from the responsibility of the plaintiff on 1994 and 195. Considering that the total amount of 42,00 tons was already loaded in the supply plan of December 8, 1995 as of February 25, 1995, the same sea pulse demanded to delete the scheduled shipment portion from the plan to delete the scheduled shipment portion from the plan to delete chiping on March 5, 1996.

(f) However, the plaintiff neglected the request of the East Seap, shipped chips of 26,702 tons on January 31, 1996, and notified it to the East Seap on February 3, 1996 (record 917 pages). The East Seap's shipment on February 7, 1996 (Records 925 pages) is an expected shipment on March 9, 196, 196, 195, 3.00 shipped on March 5, 1996, 196, 9.00 shipped on March 5, 196, 196, 196, 196, 3.00 shipped on May 9, 196, 196, 196, and 9.00 shipped on May 1, 196, 196, 196, 3.000's scheduled shipment under the above Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 50.5.

(G) Accordingly, with the official document of March 26, 1996 (No. 12 evidence, No. 58), the Plaintiff voluntarily proposed a proposal to cancel the scheduled shipment portion of the 1st quarter of February 25, 1996 and the 2/4th quarter of the supply plan of December 8, 1995. The supply plan from that date to the end of June 1996 was amended as stated in the annexed sheet “chip supply plan of March 26, 1996.”

(h) Meanwhile, on February 16, 1996, he was ordered by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries from the Ulsan-si and the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries to prohibit and prompt storage of the quantities in excess of the wharf limit. Pursuant to the attached Table “The details of the chip supply”, he shall be deemed to have arrived at the same port of Ulsan on February 18, 1996, and Paland on February 22, 1996, respectively, on March 10, 1996, and on July 20, 1995, he shall be deemed to have arrived at the same port of 9.0 billion, which was purchased from the Parisi and 9.0 billion among the Plaintiff on July 20, 199, and on July 18, 1996, he shall be deemed to have arrived at each port of 9.0 billion, 9.0 billion, 90 billion, 19.3 billion, 99 billion, to have arrived at each port of the Plaintiff.

(i) Because of the above order of storage by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of Ulsan regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, it was unreasonable to conduct c-pil work in a large quantity at one time, regardless of the fact that the body of the C-pil, which is the chip site exclusively for the chip chip of the East Seap, has been located, and there was an accident that collapses of the pole of the Seocho-Ptile (hereinafter referred to as the "C-pil accident") on April 1996. As a result of the thorough safety inspection, if the c-pil collapses if the c-pil continues as above, the result of the urgent repair is that the entire c-pil collapses may result in the collapse, and the 1st repair work was installed in a temporary support system of the main pole from May 3, 1996 to May 12, 196, and the 25th maintenance work of the wire pole from June 26, 1996 to July 15, 1996.

(j) On April 22, 1996, he agreed with the Plaintiff on April 2, 1996 that the expected shipment portion of the supply plan stated in the “Plan for the Supply of chips dated March 26, 1996” shall be maintained, and the scheduled shipment portion of April 30, 1996 shall be revoked, taking into account the C-Pe accident with the Plaintiff.

(k) However, until the end of July 1996 due to C-P repair work, the C-Ptiltil the end of May 1996, Dong Pulp demanded the cancellation of the scheduled shipment at the end of May 17, 1996 with the official document (No. 17 evidence) and the Plaintiff supplied excessive quantity to the end of May 23, 1996, and the Plaintiff again requested the 96th Pulp (No. 96th of May 196) to supply the scheduled shipment portion to the end of May 196, 196, and again requested the 96th of May 26, 199 to supply the scheduled shipment portion to the end of the 96th of June 196, 196, with the Plaintiff’s 9th of May 26, 196, 196, to maintain the order of 96th of the Pulp (No. 96th of March 26, 1996).

(l) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff notified that the Plaintiff would make a payment system by supplementing the face value of the bill of exchange received from the same pulse to the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s losses, on February 2, 1996, February 8, 1996 (No. 78), and March 8, 1996 (record 934) with the above Pulse No. 934) and the credit was accepted and revised. In the event that the same pulse refuses to do so, the Plaintiff provided that the Plaintiff would incur losses, such as the price of supply to the original pulse supplier, the amount of investment required to develop the wharf, and the amount of the face value of the bill of exchange received from the same pulse to the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s losses. However, there were conflicting opinions on the acceptance and issuance of the bill of exchange on May 8, 1996 between the same pulse and the above hulse No. 1060, May 10, 1995 (No. 30).

(m) In the knowledge of the Plaintiff’s presentation of the payment of the Promissory Notes, as of June 15, 1996, he requested the Plaintiff to withdraw the payment of the Promissory Notes, stating that the act of offering the payment of the Promissory Notes constitutes an obvious criminal act and violated the obligations under the instant contract. In addition, it is impossible for the Plaintiff to purchase the Promissory Notes for first time on June 27, 1996 requested by the Plaintiff as of May 27, 1996. However, although it was impossible for the Plaintiff to accept the scheduled shipment of the Promissory Notes and immediately establish the L/C, the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant contract. However, on June 1, 1996, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office to the effect that the trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, which became the basis of the instant contract, was disappeared due to a temporary error, but the Plaintiff would be able to temporarily terminate the instant contract by giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to temporarily terminate the instant contract due to a temporary termination of the contract.

(n) As seen after July 23, 1996 without responding to the above notification, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional arbitration seeking termination of the contract and compensation for damages arising therefrom, and on October 8, 1996, filed an application for provisional seizure of corporeal movables owned by the same pulse, the same pulse determined that the Plaintiff had no intention to maintain the contract of this case as soon as the Plaintiff had no intention to maintain the contract of this case.

(d) Progress of arbitral proceedings

(1) The plaintiff's request for arbitration

(A) On March 28, 1996, the Plaintiff filed an application with the International Commercial Conference of Arbitration, with the Plaintiff on March 10, 1994 under the long-term supply contract for chip (as seen earlier, in order to prove this, an English contract was submitted with the same chip, and thereafter, the Plaintiff claims that the instant contract was modified as prescribed in the actual English contract. As such, on March 28, 1995, a long-term supply contract for chip under the English contract claimed by the Plaintiff as valid was purchased from the Plaintiff on 300,00 tons per annum from the Plaintiff in violation of the contract, including purchase of only 220,559,398 tons, and filed an application with the Plaintiff for arbitration seeking compensation for damages against the same chip (the same shall apply to the evidence No. 27, No. 366-1).

(B) On July 23, 1996, the plaintiff asserted that the amount of 300,000 tons or less per annum 300,000 tons per annum after the conclusion of the above contract was attributable to the reasons attributable to it, and that there was a ground for termination of the contract under Article 7.2 (Article 8.2) of the English contract. The plaintiff, as a result of the termination of the contract, was a third party (such as canbucks, carzine, mixed company, Lympic, Lym Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "man Shipping"), Korea Shipping Company, etc., which withdrawn a claim for the supply price of the above 197 U.S. supply price of the above 97 U.S. supply price for the remaining 97 U.S. dollars, 194 and 195, 1090 U.S. supply price of the above 94 U.S. supply price for the remaining chip, 1995.

(2) Hearing of arbitrators

(A) On Aug. 4, 1996, the arbitral tribunal appointed an arbitrator who resides in Hong Kong as the arbitrator, and decided Singapore as the place of arbitration. The arbitrator can change the place of arbitration. The arbitration procedure includes the mandatory rules of the country where the arbitration was made and the rules of mediation and arbitration of the international commercial conference as amended on Jan. 1, 1988, and the matters of request referred to in the arbitration claim and the rules of arbitration. On Dec. 30, 1996, the parties signed it and confirmed it on Jan. 21, 1997, the arbitrator changed the place of arbitration to Hong Kong and followed the arbitration procedure to Hong Kong.

(B) On April 2, 1997, the arbitrator designated and notified the representative of the Parties as the examination date for six days from June 16, 1997, and the Plaintiff et al. applied for Nonparty 2, 5, 6, 7, 3, 8, and 9 as a witness of the examination date, Nonparty 10 as a witness of the accounting appraisal witness, Nonparty 11 as a lawyer of the Korean law, Nonparty 12 and 13 as a witness, and Nonparty 14 as a witness of the Korean law witness.

(C) Therefore, the witness examination was conducted from June 16, 1997 to June 23, 1997. Among them, the gist of the witness’s testimony to the effect that the English contract, which is not a Korean contract, is a true contract, is as follows.

① Nonparty 2: The non-party 4, who was the de facto manager of the East pulse contract, raised an objection to granting the Plaintiff the exclusive right to supply a large quantity of chip to the non-party 2 on March 1994, and upon entering into a contract to reduce the exclusive supply amount from 300,000 tons per annum to 200,000 tons per annum, the non-party 1, who was the non-party 4, who was in fact an operator of the East pulse contract, proposed to purchase more than 10,000 tons of the long-term supply contract in the above chip contract in 1992. The non-party 2, who had invested a large amount of money in the above chip business at that time, concluded the above chip contract with the plaintiff on March 10, 194, which shall not be paid for the damages of the same chip to the plaintiff as well as the damages of the same chip to the non-party 50,000.

② Nonparty 3: On January 25, 1994, at the time of the conclusion of the contract for the transfer of business facilities between the Plaintiff and the East pulp, Nonparty 2 participated together as the friendship of Nonparty 2. At the time of the conclusion of the contract, Nonparty 2 did not know the fact that a re-contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the East pulp on April 8, 1994 under the English contract as of March 10, 1994, and himself did not know the existence of the Korean contract until January 196 (Evidence 1, 108 No. 78-1).

③ Nonparty 8: Nonparty 8, who was the director of T.K.T, did not have a copy of the English contract as of April 8, 1994, but was aware of the fact that the re-contract was concluded under the English contract. A copy of the Korean contract was kept, but it was not the final contract, but the same was requested to prohibit external exposure and was not exposed to anyone who is in the U.S. including Nonparty 3 (Evidence 109-1).

④ On or before April 8, 1994, Nonparty 15, who prepared an English contract, received an English contract from Nonparty 15 attorney and delivered it to Nonparty 12 who is his superior, and received it after Nonparty 4’s signature, and kept it in the official document file of the company (Evidence 113-1 and 79-1).

(3) An arbitral award by an arbitrator

(A) The Judgment of January 21, 1998 (No. B. 48-1)

① On January 21, 1998, the arbitrator applied the contract to the regular supply contract between the Plaintiff and the same chip is an English contract, and the annual minimum supply quantity between the Plaintiff and the same chip was determined as 200,000 tons annually in accordance with the English contract.

② An arbitrator’s reimbursement clause of USD 5,190,00,000 as the exclusive supply right stated in the Korean Contract 3.1.3.1. applies D.P. I.I. acquisition price of USD 10,000 at the request of Nonparty 4, and first, adjusted the chip price to be above the actual chip price, and deducted USD 2.48 per ton from the chip price and repaid it. Thus, the arbitrator was incorporated for the purpose of tending the actual acceptance price of USD 5,000 at USD 5,00,000 in external appearance, and KRW 10,000 in external appearance. Thus, even if the above provision was deleted at the demand of Nonparty 2, the arbitrator concluded a new contract under the English contract at the request of Nonparty 2, and the contract was made by Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 9 testified as to the invalidation of the Korean contract.

(B) The judgment of April 2, 1998

With respect to the settlement claim, etc. on April 2, 1998, an arbitrator determined that the portion recognized as the Plaintiff’s share pursuant to Article 4 of the English contract is USD 2,741,341, out of USD 3,584,956 of the price difference adjustment compensation for the first half half of 1994 and USD 3,584,95. Thus, he paid to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to USD 2,741,341 and the amount equivalent to USD 25 per annum from March 29, 196 to the full payment date (the same shall apply to the evidence No. 28, No. 51-1, No. 51).

(C) A ruling on July 14, 1998

In relation to the claim for damages and arbitration costs, etc. on July 14, 1998, the arbitrator rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the Lulp violated the contract by failing to purchase the agreed amount of supply over the period of February 1994 and 1995. Accordingly, the plaintiff purchased 160,000 tons of the agreed amount of supply as stipulated in the English contract in each of the above years on the ground that the Lulp purchased 160,000 tons of the agreed amount of supply of 200,000 tons in each of the above years. However, the arbitrator decided that the Lulp is liable for damages against the plaintiff since it violated the long-term exclusive supply contract of chip by refusing to accept shipment and to issue the credit after May 1996, the arbitrator paid the above chip amount of 20,000 tons in total from 190 to 200,000 per annum 9,000 to 195,000 won in each of the agreed amount of damages.

E. The plaintiff's application for provisional disposition prohibiting infringement on the exclusive right to supply

On May 23, 1996, the Plaintiff filed an application for a provisional injunction against infringement of the right to supply exclusive chips with the effect that “this shall not be purchased from a third party other than the Plaintiff until purchase 300,000 tons of chips produced or supplied in the area south of the United States by January 22, 2004,” on the ground that the same Lulp purchased chips from the floor beerian company, etc., against the same Lulp, etc., on the ground that it violated the obligation to purchase chips annually from the Plaintiff, by purchasing chips from the floor beer, etc., the Plaintiff applied for a provisional injunction against infringement of the right to supply exclusive chips. The above provisional injunction is based on the contract of this case under the Korean language contract, and that the above application was not entirely mentioned in the English contract (the Plaintiff withdrawn the above provisional injunction on June 17, 1996).

F. Plaintiff’s report on reorganization claim and Defendant’s denial

(1) On April 14, 1998, the company reorganization procedure was commenced on August 31, 1998 at the Ulsan District Court as the 98m22 from Ulsan District Court on August 31, 1998, and the winning root was appointed as the manager, resigned on February 18, 2005, and the same day purification was appointed as the manager, and was approved by the same court on September 15, 1999.

(2) On October 2, 198: USD 13,625,92, 031 [the total amount of damages of USD 2,741, USD 365, 400, 1965, 296, 305, 296, 305, 196, 305, 196, 305, 196, 196, 305, 196, 25, 306, 196, 305, 196, 196, 25, 306, 196, 196, 305, 196, 25, 196, 305, 196, 196, 305, 196, 196, 30, 198, 198, 198, 196,

(g) Long-term charter contract between the plaintiff and macro-marine transportation;

(1) On March 27, 1995, the Plaintiff entered into a long-term charter contract to charter 15 years after delivery of 2 vessels provided by Sayang Shipping (No. 103) with Sayang Shipping on March 27, 1995, with a view to the smooth transport of Sayang chips, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract of performance guarantee (No. 35) with the content that, for one of them, the Plaintiff guarantees the Plaintiff’s performance of all charter contracts, including the obligation to pay charterage, for one of them, and as for the other one of them, cooperates in operating together with the above guaranteed vessels, unless there is a cause of force majeure.

(2) On the basis of the above long-term charter contract, Syang Shipping entered into each of the above long-term charter contract, Hanjin Heavy Industries, new shipbuilding contract, and bareboat charter contract, and thereafter, two of the vessels completed by Hanjin Heavy Industries (Keoyang Majest No and Syang No.) are delivered on January 31, 1997 and April 25 of the same year, but the above long-term charter contract was also impossible as the contract of this case was terminated between the Plaintiff and the East Sea Pulp, and the above long-term charter contract was terminated, and one of the vessels guaranteed by the East Pulp was used for marine transportation, but the remaining one of the vessels was not used for commercial operation except for the substitute for the aforesaid old pulp.

(3) The plaintiff filed an arbitration against the plaintiff seeking damages of 45 million won with the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board. On March 15, 1999, the arbitration board recognized the plaintiff's liability for damages of 5,885,208.7 dollars and 599,009.53 dollars from February 2, 1998 to 5,286,199.17 USD 6% per annum from February 2, 1999 to the date of full payment ( evidence No. 70). The plaintiff filed an arbitration judgment against the plaintiff as to 5,885,208.7 dollars and 59,009.53 dollars among them, and the plaintiff won the lawsuit against the plaintiff (Evidence No. 93).

(4) On the basis of the above judgment of execution, Taeyang Shipping requested that the debtor, the third debtor, the defendant and the defendant be the defendant and the claim amount of 8,737,170,66 won [7,114,95,208.7 USD 59,000 among the above principal + USD 599,009.53 among the above principal + USD 59,286,009.53,000 from February 2, 1998; 5,286,199.17 US dollars from February 2, 1999 to June 20, 2002; the above order of collection was served to the defendant with the plaintiff's claim for the above amount of 1,29,75,751,13) and the above order of collection was served with the plaintiff's claim for the above amount of 1,79,000 won.

(h) Action for setting aside an arbitral award;

The defendant filed a lawsuit to revoke the arbitral award of this case with the Seoul District Court 98Gahap70363, which claimed that the arbitral award of this case was based on a false English contract and a false statement of the witness, and that the judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment was omitted, and that the decision should be revoked on the ground that the procedure was considerably in violation of the fairness of the procedure. However, on June 15, 2000, the court of the Republic of Korea rendered a judgment on retirement (Evidence A73) from the same court on the ground that the above lawsuit had no jurisdiction (Evidence A73). The defendant filed an appeal with the Seoul High Court 200Na36488, but on October 12, 2001 (Records 2004). The defendant again filed an appeal with the Supreme Court 201Da778400, Feb. 26, 2003.

(i) Judgment of conviction against Nonparty 2, such as the charge of forging securities

According to the complaint of the same pulse, the non-party 2 was prosecuted for the charge of forging securities and uttering of forged securities with respect to the act of supplementing and proposing payment of the above blank bill as Seoul Central District Court 97Ra1725. On November 11, 1998, the court of first instance presumed that the Korean contract was effective under the English contract, and on the premise that the non-party 2’s act was deleted under the English contract, Articles 9 and 10 of the previous regulations limit the amount to be supplemented by the above blank bill, which limit the amount to be filled by the non-party 2 under the English contract, and thus, it is difficult to see that the above blank bill constitutes abuse of the supplementary right (No. 37-2), but the appellate court found the non-party 2 not guilty (the non-party 109No10920, Jan. 31, 2001).

2. Main Safety Determination

A. The plaintiff's process of modifying the purport of the claim of this case

On November 18, 198: USD 40,257,49,386 ($ 20,400, USD 205, USD 209, USD 205, KRW 208, KRW 205, KRW 975, KRW 208, KRW 205, KRW 97, KRW 205, KRW 208, KRW 965, KRW 205, KRW 97, KRW 205, KRW 97, KRW 205, KRW 97, KRW 205, KRW 38, KRW 97, KRW 205, KRW 965, KRW 20, KRW 97, KRW 205, KRW 96, KRW 205, KRW 97, KRW 205, KRW 97, KRW 305, KRW 965, KRW 205, KRW 965, KRW 365, etc., of this case’s claim and claim

B. Whether the lawsuit on damages for delay is legitimate

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Eul evidence 60, the Ulsan District Court decided to authorize the reorganization plan (amended plan) submitted by the defendant on September 15, 1999. According to the authorized reorganization plan, damages for delay of general commercial transactions except for reorganization claims by financial institutions are exempted from the whole amount regardless of whether before or after the commencement of reorganization proceedings. It is recognized that the plaintiff's claim was 10,828,801,440 won [9,024,854,458 US$ 208 + 286,986 + 1,532,57.20) 200 won before and after the commencement of reorganization proceedings, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay as stated in the 194th 20th 3th 2th 2th 2th 3th 3th 200 x 4th 5th 7th 7th 200 x 5th 7th 201 x 4th son son 202020220.

C. Whether the lawsuit regarding the part of the claim that issued the collection order of this case is legitimate

When there exists a seizure and collection order, the right to collect the seized claim is granted to the collection creditor, so long as the right to collect the seized claim is also granted to the collection creditor, the execution right to perform such act is limited to the collection creditor, and the seizure debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit against the seized claim (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da2388, Apr. 11, 200, etc.). Accordingly, as seen earlier, the macro- Shipping received the collection order of this case as to KRW 8,737,170,66, out of the arbitral award claim of this case on June 27, 2002, and received the collection order of this case on June 28, 2002.

Therefore, the above 8,737,170,666 won among the claims of this case is deemed unlawful because they were raised by a person who has no standing to be a party. The collection order of this case is divided into 5,38,197,197,849 ($ 17,42,578,97,97,986,47,967,97,986,97,986,97,967,47,97,47,97,47,986,47, 97, 97, 96, 97, 96, 97, 96, 27, 198, 198, 198, 2, 197, 2, 50,00,000 won or more of the claim amount of this case's claims ± 17,4296,786,205,285,285,28

3. The judgment on the merits (the judgment on the remaining part of the claim in this case, excluding the principal of each part of the claim in this case, damages for delay, claims for arbitral award in this case, and claims for damages)

A. Determination as to the claim on the arbitral award of this case

(1) Determination as to the cause of claim

According to the above facts, the arbitral award of this case is a judgment rendered in Hong Kong on a dispute arising from commercial legal relations, and is not recognized as a internal award under the Arbitration Act. Thus, with respect to the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award of this case, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which is a member of our country and the United States, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award of this case. Thus, unless the arbitral award of this case falls under any ground for refusal of enforcement stipulated in Article 5 of the New York Convention, the arbitral award of this case shall be approved or executed in the Republic of Korea, as it is, unless there is a reason for refusal of enforcement stipulated in Article 5 of the New York Convention, it is obligated to pay damages and delay damages recognized in the said arbitral award to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

(2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) Defendant’s assertion

Article 14(2), Article 13(1)5 of the former Arbitration Act (amended by Act No. 6083 of December 31, 1999), Article 422(1)7 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of January 26, 2002), Article 5(1)b of the New York Convention (amended by Act No. 6626 of January 26, 200), or Article 5(1) of the New York Convention (amended by Act No. 5(1) of the former Arbitration Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of January 26, 200), Article 5(1)4 of the former Arbitration Act (amended by Act No. 6083 of Dec. 31, 199), Article 5(1)4 of the New York Convention (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 200), where a party to an arbitral award or its execution of an arbitral award is not in compliance with its authority or its order.

(B) Determination

① Even if an international trade-related dispute is decided to be resolved through arbitration to the International Commercial Conference, it is not bound by the facts acknowledged in the arbitral award of the relevant arbitration case (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do780, Jan. 16, 2004). In this case, even though the arbitrator determined that the English contract was binding between the Plaintiff and the East Pulp in the judgment of Jan. 21, 1998, the party member can be acknowledged differently from the facts recognized in the judgment of Jan. 21, 1998. In addition, even though an arbitrator has not been authorized to judge the legitimacy of the content of the arbitral award to the court of the executing state, it is necessary to determine whether the content of the arbitral award has been met and whether there is a reason for refusing its enforcement (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu103, Feb. 9, 198).

② 앞서 채용한 증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 i) 이 사건 공급계약 체결 이후 동해펄프가 원고와 사이에 이 사건 공급계약을 영문계약서와 같이 변경할 특별한 사정을 찾을 수 없고(원고는 앞서 본 중재 절차에서 소외 2가 한 증언과 같이 동해펄프의 일부 주주들이 원고에게 칩의 독점공급권을 주게 되면 위험하므로 연간 공급량을 300,000톤에서 200,000톤으로 줄이자고 이의를 제기함으로써 영문계약을 체결하였다고 주장하나, 이를 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없고, 오히려 을23호증, 을24호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 이 사건 공급계약을 체결하기 전에 이미 소외 2와 동해펄프는 칩 공급량에 관하여 구체적으로 논의하였고, 동해펄프는 내부결재를 모두 거친 후 이 사건 계약을 체결하였으며, 이 사건 공급계약 체결 이후 동해펄프의 이사회에서는 독점공급권의 대가 5,190,000달러에 관한 세금문제만이 언급되었을 뿐 연간 공급량 300,000톤에 관련한 논의는 없었던 사실을 인정할 수 있다), 독점공급권의 대가에 관한 조항이 삭제된 영문계약서는 D.P.I. 영업시설 양도와 관련하여 계속중이던 미국 내 소송에 제출할 필요가 있었고 또 설립초기인 원고가 은행대출을 받는 데 제출할 필요가 있는 것이었던 점, ii) 한글계약서 3조에 규정된 독점공급권의 대가 5,190,000달러는, 원고가 동해펄프에 보낸 일부 공문이 이에 관하여 언급하고 있는 것 등에 비추어 원고가 동해펄프에 대하여 실제로 부담하고 있었던 채무라고 봄이 상당하고, 중재인이 위 1998. 1. 21.자 판정에서 인정한 것처럼 원고가 동해펄프에 대하여 실제로 그 지급의무를 부담하지 아니하는 눈속임에 불과하다고 볼 수 없으며, 또 소외 2의 중재사건에서의 증언과 같이 영문계약의 체결에도 불구하고 약정 연간공급량이 300,000톤이었다면, 동해펄프가 아무런 대가 없이 이를 포기할 만한 합리적 이유를 찾기 어려운 점, iii) 한글계약서에는 당시 동해펄프를 대표하던 사장 소외 16이 기명날인한 반면, 영문계약서에는 대표권이 없는 전문 소외 4가 서명한 점, iv) 원고와 동해펄프가 1994. 3. 29. 쌍방 부담하게 될 금전지급의무를 담보하기 위하여 서로 견질용 약속어음을 교부하면서 작성한 인증서(을18호증의 10)에는 그 근거로 한글계약서 10조를 명시적으로 언급하고 있고, 영문계약서가 원고의 주장과 같이 1994. 3. 10.경 작성된 유효한 계약서라면 영문계약서에는 한글계약서 10조에 해당하는 위 약속어음 교부에 관한 조항이 삭제되어 있으므로, 영문계약하에서는 위 약속 어음을 교부할 필요가 없는 점, v) 원고의 선적과 은행 네고 담당 부사장인 소외 3이 1994. 4. 8. T.K.T에 가짜계약서의 송부를 요청하는 중국어로 된 팩스를 보냈는데, 그 팩스에는 “(미국)법원에서는 이 계약서를 근거로 상환차액 5,190,000달러를 압류처리할 것임. … 이 계약서는 정말 머리가 아프다. … 내 생각에는 아마도 반드시 다른 한 부의 가짜 계약서가 필요한데 후유증이 있을지 없을지 모르겠다.”라고 기재되어 있고, 그 후 T.K.T의 과장 소외 8이 동해펄프에 가계약서의 송부를 요청하기 위하여 위 팩스를 첨부하여 보낸 1994. 4. 8.자 공문(을30호증)의 하단 비고란에는 “4/8 오전 소외 3와 통화내용”이라고 기재되어 있는 것 등에 비추어 볼 때, 소외 3은 위 팩스를 보낼 당시 한글계약서의 존재를 알고 있었고, 소외 8 또한 소외 3과 통화하면서 한글계약서의 내용 및 가계약서의 필요성에 관하여 대화하였음이 명백하고, 따라서 영문계약서는 위 공문을 보낸 1994. 4. 8. 당시까지 작성되지 아니하였다고 추인되는 점, vi) 앞서 본 원고의 독점공급권침해금지 가처분신청서의 신청취지 및 신청원인은 모두 한글계약서에 근거하거나 이를 언급하고 있고, 거기에 영문계약서에 관한 언급은 전혀 없는 점, vii) 원고가 칩을 선적하면서 발행한 선하증권에는 칩 규격에 관한 한글계약서 중 부속합의서 3.의 가. 1)에 규정된 바와 같이 32mm 이상의 물량과 3mm 이하의 물량이 차지하는 비율이 기재되어 있는 점(기록 1496쪽, 1499쪽, 1502쪽, 1505쪽, 1508쪽, 1511쪽 등), viii) 원고와 동해펄프 사이에 오고 간 공문 중, 약정 연간 공급량에 관하여 한글계약서에 의한 300,000톤을 언급하고 있는 것과 한글계약서 5.2조에 의거한 공급가격을 적용하는 것을 다수 찾아 볼 수 있고(갑45호증의 50, 갑47호증, 갑74호증의 3, 을64호증 등), 동해펄프가 1995. 4.경 거양해운과 사이에 이행보증계약을 체결하면서 작성된 계약 이행보증서(을35호증) 1조에도 한글계약서가 언급되어 있는 점, ix) 대법원의 상고기각 판결로 확정된 소외 2에 대한 위 항소심 형사판결은, 소외 2가 액면금을 54,900,000,000원으로 보충하여 지급제시한 위 약속어음은 한글계약서 9조에 따라 부담하게 될 손해 배상의무를 담보하기 위하여 한글계약서 10조에 근거하여 발행된 것이라는 전제하에, 소외 2가 백지보충권을 남용하였다고 인정하여 소외 2에 대한 유가증권위조죄 등의 점에 관하여 유죄로 판단한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 영문계약서는 1994. 4. 11.경 원고와 동해펄프가 그들 사이의 D.P.I. 영업시설양도와 관련하여 계속중이던 미국 내 소송에 제출할 목적으로, 또 원고가 은행대출을 받는 데 사용할 목적으로, 동해펄프의 입장에서는 자산, 원고의 입장에서는 부채에 해당하는 독점공급권의 대가 5,190,000달러와 관련된 일부 조항을 삭제하고 작성일자를 1994. 3. 10.로 소급하여 작성한 허위의 계약서임이 명백하고, 따라서 원고와 동해펄프 사이의 칩 거래에 있어 적용될 구속력 있는 계약서는 한글계약서라고 보아야 할 것이다.

③ Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances such as the falsity of the English supply contract as seen above, the Plaintiff continued to be in the arbitration case since its application for arbitration. Although it is well known that the binding contract on the long-term supply contract of chips between the same pulp is Korean language contract and the supply price agreed on hulp on 1994 and 195, according to the Korean language contract first, even if the long-term supply contract of chip is terminated due to the reasons attributable to the same pulp as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is possible to set off damages liability, etc. due to the termination of the above chip with 5,190,000 dollars under Article 9.3 of the Korean Korean chip contract, the Plaintiff would not be obliged to obtain any compensation, etc. from the same pulp, and the Plaintiff would be obliged to submit a false compensation for damages from the above chip to the Plaintiff on the ground that it was against the obligation to make a false compensation for binding force of the said pulp contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the ground that it was applied to the above 9 agreement.

④ Article 5 of the New York Convention lists the grounds for refusal of enforcement on a limited basis. Among them, if recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award is contrary to the public order of that country, the court of enforcement country may refuse recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award. This purpose is to prevent recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award from impairing the basic moral belief and social order of the enforcement country and to protect it. Thus, in its judgment, the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award shall be limited considering not only domestic circumstances but also the stability of international trade order. If the pertinent arbitral award is recognized, the recognition or enforcement may be refused when specific result is contrary to the good morals and other social order of the enforcement country (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da20134, Apr. 11, 2003, etc.). If the parties who agreed to arbitration request arbitration and submit false arguments and false evidence in order to prove the same, it shall be deemed that the arbitral award is against the good public order of Korea, and if so, it shall be deemed that it is against the good public order and good public order of Korea.

Therefore, as seen above, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have acquired the arbitral award of this case which is favorable to himself by means of false assertion and proof. Thus, the approval or execution of the arbitral award of this case shall be refused by the Korean court as prescribed by New York Convention Article 5 (2) (b). Thus, the plaintiff's claim on the arbitral award of this case is without merit.

B. Determination as to the claim for damages of this case

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) According to the long-term exclusive supply contract between the Plaintiff and the same sea pulse, at least 230,00 tons in 194 and at least 300,000 tons in each year thereafter, they can purchase chips from a third party who must do so in a year. However, in violation of the above contract, 81,800 tons in 194; 18,795 tons in 195; 37,295 tons in 196; 37,295 tons in 194; 169,939 tons in 195; 197,538 tons in 195; 88,411 tons in each year; 1960 tons in each year in each year in each year in each year in each year in each year in which the Plaintiff unilaterally purchased chips from a third party; 200 tons in total in each year in each year in each year in each year in each year in which the Plaintiff agreed to purchase chips.

(B) Accordingly, on July 1, 1996, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the contract to the same sea pulse due to the causes attributable to the same sea pulp, and the contract for long-term exclusive supply between the Plaintiff and the same sea pulse was lawfully terminated.

(C) On the premise that the long-term exclusive supply contract with the same sea pulp is to be continued, the Plaintiff entered into a long-term charter contract with the Lulp on the request of the same sea pulp. As a result of the termination of the long-term exclusive supply contract for chip due to the causes attributable to the same sea pulp, the Plaintiff was unable to perform the long-term charter contract. The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages of USD 5,885,208.7 to the Plaintiff on the basis of the arbitral award by the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board and the judgment of execution based thereon became final and conclusive. The same sea pulp has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the above money

(2) Determination

(A) Since the instant contract is based on the fiduciary relationship between the parties to the instant contract, it is reasonable to view that if one party’s fiduciary relationship was destroyed during the existence of the instant contract and thus making it difficult to maintain the contractual relationship as it is. It is also reasonable to view that the other party can terminate the instant contract by preventing the contractual relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5948, Nov. 26, 2002). ① the Plaintiff’s supply amount of chip to the same chip, i.e., the annual supply amount of the same chip or the quantity of the chip purchased at the time of the instant contract, as seen earlier, is difficult to view that the Plaintiff violated the contractual relationship with the Plaintiff, as seen in the foregoing, and that there was a lack of supply capacity of the Plaintiff, as seen in the instant contract, frequent changes in the supply plan, etc., and thus, it cannot be seen that there was a lack of agreement between the Plaintiff’s maximum supply of the chip as seen earlier.

(B) Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s circumstance alone violated the duty under the instant contract, thereby destroying the trust relationship, which forms the basis for maintaining and maintaining the instant contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s act of claiming damages only from time to time with the Plaintiff’s situation, and making up the said promissory note more than to maintain and maintain the instant contract relationship, which constitutes the crime of forging securities and the crime of uttering of forged securities. In other words, the Plaintiff’s act of claiming for the payment of the said promissory note unfairly exceeding the limit of the right to supplement clearly on June 14, 1996, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s application for provisional disposition prohibiting infringement on the right to supply the instant contract cannot be seen as having been made for the damages under the premise that the Plaintiff’s breach of duty under the instant contract cannot be seen as having been significantly destroyed and void due to the Plaintiff’s breach of duty under the premise of termination of the instant contract.

4. Conclusion

If so, 16,216,99,289 won among the lawsuits in this case [the principal = 5,388,197,849 won (=1,017,362,166 won out of the principal of the arbitration award as of April 2, 1998 + 2,186,726,275 won out of the principal and arbitration expenses of the arbitration award as of July 14, 1998 + 2,186,726,275 won + damages for delay 10,828,801,40 won out of the principal and the voting rights equivalent to the same amount of the damages related to marine transportation] + The decision in the first instance is unlawful, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as of April 2, 1998. Thus, the decision in the first instance is so unfair as to be so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance.

Judges’ aid aid (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-tae