Pakistan Holdings (Attorneys Jeong Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

DPS Korea Co., Ltd. (Law Firm D.L.S., Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 10, 2017

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Kahap516149 Decided June 10, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim

With respect to the arbitration case between the plaintiff and the defendant, the non-party shall be allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the arbitral award in the attached Form No. 1, 2014, which was issued by the non-party on August 7, 2014.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written or added. Thus, the court's explanation on this case shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the third place of the judgment of the court of first instance, the third place of the 19 and the 20th place of the 19th and the 20th part of the 19th 20th am "THE CHATRD INSITUTRAL OFITTRAL TRUTRB" (hereinafter referred to as the "CITRB") "ARB") was conducted with the territory of the Republic of Korea, "the Agred International Association of Certified International Arbitration (hereinafter referred to as the "CITRB"), a conciliation or arbitration institution having its headquarters in the territory of the territory."

In the 4th and 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "Director of the Court of First Instance" shall be applied to the "Director of the Court of First Instance" as the "Director of the Court of First Instance".

In the 3rd sentence of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, “716,423,00 roads” was “716,423.00 roads”.

/ The 9th sentence of the first instance court is not written and “B” shall be written and “B” shall be written.

In Part 9, the following shall be added to the 18th judgment of the first instance.

Article 5 of the New York Convention stipulates as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 제5조 1. 판정의 승인과 집행은 판정의 피원용 당사자의 요청에 따라서, 그 당사자가 판정의 승인 및 집행을 요구받은 국가의 권한 있는 당국에 다음의 증거를 제출하는 경우에 한하여 거부될 수 있다. 가. 제2조에 언급된 합의의 당사자가 그들에게 적용가능한 법에 따라 무능력자이었거나, 또는 당사자가 준거법으로서 지정한 법에 따라 또는 그러한 지정이 없는 경우에는 판정을 내린 국가의 법에 따라 전기 합의가 유효하지 않은 경우, 또는 나. 판정의 피원용 당사자가 중재인의 선정이나 중재절차에 관하여 적절한 통고를 받지 아니하였거나 또는 그 밖의 이유에 의하여 응할 수 없었을 경우, 또는 다. 판정이 중재회부조항에 규정되어 있지 아니하거나 그 조항의 범위에 속하지 아니하는 분쟁에 관한 것이거나, 또는 그 판정이 중재회부의 범위를 벗어나는 사항에 관한 결정을 포함하는 경우. 다만, 중재에 회부한 사항에 관한 결정이 중재에 회부하지 아니한 사항과 분리될 수 있는 경우에는 중재에 회부한 사항에 관한 결정을 포함하는 판정의 부분은 승인 및 집행될 수 있다. 또는 라. 중재판정부의 구성이나 중재절차가 당사자 간의 합의와 합치하지 아니하거나, 이러한 합의가 없는 경우에는 중재가 행해진 국가의 법과 합치하지 아니하는 경우, 또는 마. 당사자에 대하여 판정의 구속력이 아직 발생하지 아니하였거나 또는 판정이 내려진 국가의 권한 있는 당국에 의하여 또는 그 국가의 법에 따라 판정이 취소 또는 정지된 경우 2. 중재판정의 승인 및 집행을 요구 받은 국가의 권한 있는 당국이 다음의 사항을 인정 하는 경우에도 중재판정의 승인과 집행이 거부될 수 있다. 가. 분쟁의 대상인 사항이 그 국가의 법에 따라서는 중재에 의해 해결될 수 없는 것일경우, 또는 나. 판정의 승인이나 집행이 그 국가의 공공의 질서에 반하는 경우 Article V 1. Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that: (a) the parties to the agreement referred to in article II were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or (b) the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (c) the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the term of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognized and enforced; or (d) the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or (e) the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. 2. Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the competent authority in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that: (a) the subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of that country; or (b) the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country.

In the 11th sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added.

In addition, although New York Convention does not explicitly provide for the waiver of the right to raise an objection, it is interpreted that if a party has participated in the arbitral proceedings without raising an objection in a timely manner against the defect in the arbitral proceedings, the recognition and enforcement procedure of the arbitral award may not raise an objection. Accordingly, even if following, the defendant may not raise an objection against the procedural defect such as the appointment of the arbitral institution and the arbitrator.

In Part 11, the following shall be added to the 16th decision of the first instance.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant renounced its procedural rights, such as an arbitration through the ICC arbitration procedure, and that a new agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the progress of the ICCB procedure, rather than for ensuring the public interest. In light of the progress of the ICCRB arbitration procedure and the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the procedure, etc., it is reasonable to deem that a new agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the progress of the ICCB procedure.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judge Cho Young-young (Presiding Judge)