국제상사중재에서 중재합의와 소송유지명령

In this article the author deals with whether a court can issue an anti-suit injunction restraining a party to an arbitration agreement from pursuing a lawsuit in a foreign country in violation of the arbitration agreement. The concept of anti-suit injunction as such is not familiar to Korean lawyers. However, in practice, English courts and the courts of the United States often issue anti-suit injunctions. This article consists of six chapters. In Chapter Ⅱ the author offers an overview of the anti-suit inunction by court under English law. In ChapterⅢ the author discusses the issue of whether the English anti-suit injunction is compatible with the Brussels regime and briefly explains the recent judgments of the European Court of Justice, namely the judgments of Turner v. Grovit of April 27, 2004 and Allianz v. West Tankers of February 10, 2009. In addition, the author deals with whether the arbitral tribunal can also issue an anti-suit inunction under English law, and the compensation of damage resulting from breach of an arbitration agreement under English law. Finally, the author discusses the issues from the Korean law perspectives whether the Korean court of arbitral tribunal can issue an anti-suit injunction based upon an arbitration agreement restraining the other party from pursuing a lawsuit in a foreign country. The author stresses that the issue of whether Korean courts can issue an anti-suit injunction based upon an arbitration agreement is closely related to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, treatment of parallel proceedings and the concept and legal nature of so called 'contract of procedure' (Prozessvertrag under German law) and the role of courts in dispute settlement. The author urges other Korean experts to pay more attention to anti-suit injunction in the future.