Newsletter | July 2016, Issue 2
	INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION & CROSS-BORDER LITIGATION
	New Amendments to the Korean Arbitration Act Expected to Allow for More Efficient Arbitration in Korea
	On May 29, 2016, the amended Arbitration Act (the “Amended Act”) was promulgated into law.
	The Amended Act, which is due to go into effect by the end of 2016, introduces some important changes that are designed to make the Arbitration Act more consistent with the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”). South Korea is the 19th member to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law, and is now one of the most arbitration-friendly countries in the world.
	Some noteworthy changes to the Amended Act include:
	1. Ease of the requirement for written arbitration agreement
	Under the current Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement is valid only if an arbitration agreement is contained in a document, signed in writing by the parties, and exchanged by means of letters, telex, telegrams, fax, or other means of communication. However, the Amended Act allows the writing requirement to be met if it is “recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct, or other means.” The statute also expressly recognizes an arbitration agreement evidenced by electronic communication. Accordingly, arbitration agreements made through an oral exchange or by any other means that can be supported by evidence such as transcripts or meeting minutes will now be considered a valid arbitration agreement.
	2. Expansion of the scope of interim measures
	The current Arbitration Act allows the arbitral tribunal to order a party to take interim measures if requested by a party and only in relation to the subject matter of the dispute (unless otherwise agreed to by the parties). The current Arbitration Act does not enumerate any method of enforcement. However, the Amended Act allows the arbitral tribunal to order a party to take interim measures for protection that may be considered necessary to: (1) maintain or restore the status quo, pending determination of the dispute; (2) take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself; (3) provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied; or (4) preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute. The Amended Act provides that the arbitral tribunal’s decision on interim measures is enforceable upon court approval. In the context of contractual disputes between a subcontractor and a project owner, where the subcontractor wishes to resist an unreasonable bond call by the project owner, the amendments mean that now, such a subcontractor can ask the arbitral tribunal to order an interim measure in accordance with the Amended Act (rather than seeking a preliminary injunction in the Korean courts).
	3. Broader concepts of arbitrability, extension of arbitral tribunal’s authority to investigate evidence, and ease of requirements for enforcement of arbitral awards
	The Amended Act expands the scope of arbitrable disputes to cover certain disputes involving public law issues, including disputes arising from property rights as well as non-monetary property rights. This expansion of scope is opening up a new means of resolution of disputes in public laws through arbitration proceedings. Also, the Amended Act allows the tribunal to take on a more effective role. The tribunal can now collect evidence by ordering the appearance of witnesses, and submission of necessary documents in pending arbitration proceedings. Previously, the Arbitration Act mandated procedural requirements, such as in-court hearings regarding applications for the enforcement of arbitration awards. However, the Amended Act allows the court to recognize enforcement without necessarily conducting a hearing.
	Further, the Amended Act allows for a more effective and speedier conduct in all aspects of the arbitration proceeding, including in the application for arbitration, enforcement of interim decisions, the hearing, and enforcement of arbitration awards.
	Such efficiency improvements to arbitration procedures are expected to provide substantial benefits to all parties conducting arbitration in Korea.
	Back to Main Page
	If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact below:
	Byung-Chol (B.C.) Yoon bcyoon@kimchang.com Byung-Woo Im bwim@kimchang.com Bo Ram Hong boram.hong@kimchang.com
	For more information, please visit our website:
	www.kimchang.com International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Group