외국 중재기관의 중국내 중재를 약정한 중재합의의 유효성에 관한 연구

Purpose : This study examines the legal implications and practical challenges associated with arbitration agreements that stipulate China as the seat of arbitration while designating a foreign arbitral institution. In light of the current Chinese Arbitration Law, the paper explores potential legal uncertainties and analyzes how Chinese courts have interpreted such agreements. Drawing on recent judicial decisions, the study aims to provide practical guidance for Korean enterprises and investors who intend to enter into arbitration agreements involving non-Chinese arbitral institutions—including Korean institutions—while selecting China as the arbitral seat. Research design, data, methodology : The research adopts a doctrinal and case-based approach. It analyzes the relevant provisions of the Chinese Arbitration Law and its draft amendments concerning the conduct of arbitration by foreign arbitral institutions within China. In addition, it reviews key Chinese court decisions to assess how such agreements have been treated in practice. Results : Chinese courts have demonstrated a progressive interpretation of arbitration-related provisions by recognizing the validity of arbitration agreements that designate foreign arbitral institutions to conduct proceedings in China. Rather than declaring such agreements invalid, the courts have acknowledged foreign institutions as legitimate arbitral bodies under Chinese arbitration law. Conclusions : For Korean parties entering into arbitration agreements with Chinese counterparts that designate China as the seat of arbitration and appoint a foreign arbitral institution, the following considerations are essential: First, the governing law of the arbitration agreement should be expressly stipulated as the law of the jurisdiction in which the arbitral institution is located. Second, Hong Kong may be considered as an alternative seat of arbitration to mitigate legal uncertainty and enhance enforceability.