중재판정 취소의 소의 최근 동향

Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution among parties in international transactions. Reasons why arbitration is favored over court litigation, the primary ones include the ease of enforcement afforded by the New York Convention and the fact that arbitration is generally conducted as a single-instance procedure. Nevertheless, an arbitral award does not exist in a legal vacuum, and in certain circumstances court intervention is necessary. Incorporating both the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (‘the Model Law’) and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the New York Convention’), the Korean Arbitration Act seeks to minimize court involvement in arbitral awards, permitting annulment by a court only under strictly limited conditions. This article examines case law on annulment of arbitral awards rendered by the Seoul Central District Court, Seoul High Court, and the Supreme Court between November 1, 2019, and October 31, 2025. It focuses on decisions involving issues that arise repeatedly in practice or warrant reconsideration. The analysis assesses whether the annulment practices of Korean courts align with international standards in light of the spirit of the Model Law. The findings indicate that, in general, the courts tend to respect arbitration to the fullest extent possible and avoid substantively re-examining the merits, except where necessary to determine the grounds for annulment. This approach aligns with the Model Law. However, the practice of treating optional arbitration agreements as invalid lacks a clear legal basis in the Arbitration Act and is at odds with international trends, and therefore should be reconsidered. Moreover, in light of the international trend toward expanding the scope of arbitrability, it is necessary to resolve the conflict between Articles 1 and 3 of the Korean Arbitration Act concerning whether arbitrable disputes are limited solely to “private law disputes.”