1 Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer 2014), 498–9.
2 Sulamérica Cia Nacional De Seguros S.A. and others v Enesa Engenharia S.A.  EWCA Civ 638 (Sulamérica); Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Andustrisi AS and VSC Steel Company Ltd  EWHC 4071 (Comm). Other jurisdictions, notably Singapore, follow a different approach. FirstLink Investments Corp Ltd v GT Payment Pte Ltd and others  SGHCR 12.
3 Klöckner Pentaplast Gmbh & Co Kg v Advance Technology (HK) Company Limited, 14/07/2011, HCA 1526/2010.
4 NTPC v Singer [AIR 1993 SC 998].
5 Author’s note: a review of the District Court case can be found in Kay-Jannes Wegner and John Rhie, ‘Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. v Yoons Marine Co., Ltd. and Nakahara Shipping Panama SA, District Court of Busan, 8 October 2008’, A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters, Kluwer Law International.
6 90 Daka 19470, 22 February 1991 (Supreme Court); 2003 Da 23168, 9 July 2004 (Supreme Court).
8 Author’s note: the ARTC seeks to regulate unfair contracts against parties in inferior bargaining positions, such as consumers.
9 Author’s note: Article 103 provides, ‘A legal act that contains matters that are contrary to public policy shall be null and void’.
10 Refer to 89 Daka 715, 24 March 1987; GKN International Trading v Kukje Corporation (I), 84 Daka 1003, 9 February 1988 (Supreme Court).
11 Author’s note: Richard Sykes.
12 An earlier version appears in SIDRC Cases and this appears with permission from the Korean Council for International Arbitration (KOCIA) and Seoul International Dispute Resolution Center (SIDRC).
13 Author’s note: the original text provides ‘Hong Kong HKIAC’.
14 [Footnote in original text] A document that includes the cause of the request for arbitration and is similar to a complaint under civil litigation procedures.
15 Gwangju Bank v China Bank, 98 Da 35037, 9 June 2000 (Supreme Court) (hereafter Gwangju Bank). Author’s note: as a verbatim reference from the original case, quotations have been added.
16 The Supreme Court later reversed the High Court decision because it found the arbitration agreement in the Shareholders’ Agreement should have applied to the dispute arising out of the Commitment Letter. See para. 3.02.
17 Author’s note: Korea Resolution & Collection was later renamed Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC).
18 Author’s note: the ICC International Court of Arbitration appears to have set the place of arbitration as Japan in the absence of party agreement.
19 Author’s note: the charter party called for arbitration in New York.
20 National Agricultural Cooperative Federation v Pan Ocean, 88 Daka 23735, 13 February 1990 (Supreme Court).
21 (in parenthesis in the text) Effective from 1 September 1995.
22 (in parenthesis in the text) Effective from 1 October 1995.
24 Author’s note: from Article 2 of the 1995 CIETAC Rules, which corresponds to Article 3 of the 2014 CIETAC Rules.
27 Author’s note: 22 March 1976 version of the Japan Shipping Exchange’s Rules of Maritime Arbitration.
28 Mok, Commercial Arbitration, 117. Other jurisdictions such as the UK and civil law countries such as France and Switzerland also state ‘rules of law’ in their arbitration legislation: Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2676–7.
29 Kwang Hyun Suk, Private International Law and International Litigation (Pakyoungsa 2002) Vol. II, 484–6.
30 Keumjung Co. v Gyeong-Deok Seo (I), 97 Da 21918, 10 March 1998 (Supreme Court); Korea International Cooperation Agency v Hi-Net Trading Co., 2007 Da 73918, 24 June 2010 (Supreme Court) (hereafter KOICA).
31 Author’s note: this ground for set aside has been changed to Article 36(2)(1)(4). See Chapter 9.
32 Author’s note: also translated as the ‘principle of party control’, Prinzip der Dispositionsmaxime in German, and principe dispositif in French. See <sites.google.com/site/arbitrationinkorea/> for Chinese characters.
33 Author’s note: suggests that fairness may be considered.
34 Author’s note: lack of reasoning and omission to decide are two set aside grounds that existed in the pre-Model Law versions of the Arbitration Act. See paras. 8.17 and 10.54.
35 Author’s note: these two sentences paraphrase language from KOICA (n 30).
36 Author’s note: again suggests that equity may be considered.
37 Author’s note: again suggests that equity may be considered.
38 GKN International Trading v Kukje Sangsa (II), 89 Daka 20252, 10 April 1990 (Supreme Court).
40 The sections unrelated to arbitration have been excluded. A review of this case can be found in Kay-Jannes Wegner and John Rhie, ‘LG Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., Supreme Court of Korea, 10 January 2003’, A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters, Kluwer Law International.
41 Gwangju Bank (n 15). Author’s note: based on Article 1 of the Civil Act. As a verbatim reference from the original case, quotations have been added.
42 Author’s note: both provisions remain unchanged in the 2016 Act.
43 (In parenthesis in the text) English Court of Appeal, Daval Aciers d’Usinor et de Sacilor and Others v Armare S.R.L., (The Nerano). Author’s note:  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.
44 Author’s note: Articles 16 and 32 remain unchanged in the 2016 Act on International Private Law.
46 Won Jeong Lee, ‘Incorporation of Arbitration Clause under Voyage Charter Party into Charter Party Bill of Lading’ (2014) 36 The Journal of Korea Maritime Law Association 93–124, 108, 121.
47 Kwang Hyun Suk, Private International Law and International Litigation (Pakyoungsa 2007) Vol. IV (hereafter Suk, Private International Law (IV)), 492. A similar position can be found in Dong Hun Chae, ‘Arbitration Clause in a Charter Party and Incorporation into a Bill of Lading’ (2003) 44 Commentaries on Supreme Court Decisions 244, 274.
48 Suk, Private International Law (IV), 477, fn 64.