1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

3. Total costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts and

2. The reasoning of this court’s assertion is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of each corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

A. Article 36(4) of the Arbitration Act provides that “A party may not file a lawsuit for setting aside an arbitral award after a ruling of approval or enforcement rendered by a court of the Republic of Korea with respect to the pertinent arbitral award becomes final and conclusive.” This is to promote the economy of litigation by requiring the party who has lost the arbitral award to assert the grounds for refusal of enforcement in the procedure of recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award in most cases, and to prevent the conflict between the decision of recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award and the judgment of setting aside the arbitral award with respect to the same issue.”

Considering the purport of the above provision, not only a lawsuit for setting aside an arbitral award that was filed after a decision to enforce an arbitral award became final and conclusive, but also a lawsuit for setting aside an arbitral award pending before the decision to enforce the arbitral award becomes final and conclusive shall be deemed unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da55192 delivered on June 23, 2000. Regarding this, the plaintiffs, unlike the former Act, require the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards to be made by a decision, which is not a judgment, shall be made by a decision, not a judgment. The decision is based on a simplified deliberation and procedure seeking promptness different from the judgment. Thus, under the current Arbitration Act, even after the final decision of enforcement of arbitral awards became final and conclusive, Article 36(4) of the current Arbitration Act provides for the same purport as the former Act even after the final and conclusive decision of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards was changed by a ruling.