All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 36(2)1(d) of the Arbitration Act

A. Article 36(2)1(d) of the Arbitration Act provides for one of the grounds for revocation of arbitral awards “The fact that the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings did not comply with the agreement between the parties that do not go against the mandatory provisions of this Act, or that such agreement did not comply with this Act,” respectively.

This is derived from the contractual nature of arbitral proceedings, which is, in principle, formed by the party's autonomy and agreement, but, in the absence of agreement between the parties, it is the purport that arbitral proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the voluntary rules applicable to the arbitration.

In order to constitute a ground for revocation of an arbitral award under the above provision, it is insufficient to simply have violated an agreement or a voluntary provision between the parties, and the degree of infringement of the party’s procedural right under the pertinent arbitral procedure is so obvious and unacceptable.

[Supreme Court Decision 2017Da238837 Decided December 22, 2017 refers to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter “New York Convention”) that is the same as the said provision.

(1) Article 5(1)(d) of the International Trade Law Model Arbitration Board (UNFCCCCITRAL) provides for the same reasons as the grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement under Article 5 of the New York Convention as grounds for revocation of an arbitral award.

Since Article 36 of the Arbitration Act of Korea, which was wholly amended by Act No. 6083 on December 31, 1999, was enacted on the ground of Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Act, it is reasonable to interpret the same as above in order to uniformly apply internationally established standards.

B. The court below held that in the instant arbitral proceedings, the arbitral tribunal’s claim was asserted against the Counterclaim Plaintiff.