선택적 중재합의의 유효성에 관한 연구

김경배,신군재 韓國仲裁學會 2005 중재연구 Vol.15 No.1

Arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain dispute which have arisen or which may arise between them. Arbitration agreement is an important factor to judge the existence of the mutual arbitration agreement and it should be the object of examination before anything else to judge the existence of the mutual arbitration agreement. Recently the Supreme Court seemed to make negative position about validity of selective arbitration agreement. However theoretically and scientifically selective arbitration agreement is a valid arbitration agreement. Examine selective arbitration agreement throughly according to the autonomy of the parties rules, wide jurisdiction rules of interpretation, principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, and moses cone presumption rule of interpretation, selective arbitration agreement is a valid arbitration agreement. Also analyze precedents in accordance with validity of selective from all angles which are voluntary agreement of the parties, agreement in writing, principle of private autonomy, comparative study of domestic and foreign precedents and mutual relation of arbitration and trial, selective arbitration agreement based on principle of private by the parties is considered a valid arbitration agreement. Courts should actively accept selective arbitration agreement as a valid arbitration agreement to make foreign companies prefer arbitration in Korea and in oder for arbitration to be widely used in disputes.

Research on the Expansion of the Effect of Arbitration Agreements in China

黎乃忠 한국중재학회 2024 중재연구 Vol.34 No.3

Voluntariness is the basis for the emergence and development of arbitration, so the effect of arbitration agreements is confined to the contracting parties. In recent years, with the development of society, discussions have arisen on whether the arbitration agreement can extend from absolute voluntariness to non-contracting parties. Based on various reasons, including the privity of contract, the independence of arbitration clause, and the privacy and confidentiality of arbitration, the negation theory denies the expansion of the effect of arbitration agreements to non-contracting parties. While from the perspective of the exception of the privity of contract, the improvement the efficiency of litigation settlement, and the application by analogy of litigation expansion, the supporting argument affirms the reasonable expansion of the effect of arbitration agreements to non-contracting parties. Whether the effect of arbitration agreements can be expanded have arisen controversies in the theoretical circle, and there are two distinctive attitudes in the practice circle. Against the background that the expansion of the effect of arbitration agreements has already become an international trend, China has also made legislative attempts to expand the subject and content of arbitration agreements: it is expanding the effect of arbitration agreements to non-contracting parties by conducting subject expansion on various aspects such as tacit consent, the determination of arbitration of a secondary contract based on its principal contract, succession, subrogation, agency, etc.; it is also trying to maintain the effect of arbitration agreements by conducting content expansion on various aspects such as multiple arbitration commissions, and arbitration-or-litigation mechanism. The expansion of the effect of arbitration agreements conforms to the value orientation of efficiency and justice, and is supported by the theoretical basis of the estoppel principle and the fair and reasonable expectation principle. The expansion of the effect of arbitration agreements is in line with the development of the times.

중국 법원의 선택적 중재합의에 대한 태도

하현수 한국중재학회 2016 중재연구 Vol.26 No.2

Lately each country tends to provide neutrality and ease of enforcement in order to settle disputes related to international trade through commercial arbitration. In order to expand the use of arbitration systems, most countries accept arbitration agreements as an effective tool agreed between parties that express their intent to settle disputes by the arbitration. It is applied equally to selective arbitration agreements and parties can select either arbitration or lawsuit to settle disputes based on the contract intent for selective arbitration agreements. However, China does not admit the effectiveness of selective arbitration agreements. Chinese courts regard selective arbitration agreements as not valid because the contract of a selective arbitration agreement between parties is not a definite expression to only use the arbitration and there is no exclusion of court jurisdiction. Therefore, the study attempts to consider effective conditions for selective arbitration agreements in the Chinese arbitration act and other relevant regulations, and also verifies the judgment by Chinese courts on relevant disputes. As a result, the study explores some problems and implications of Chinese selective arbitration agreements and suggests some precautions in case Korean companies pursue selective arbitration agreements with Chinese enterprises and investors. 근래에 들어 각국은 상사중재제도를 통해 국제거래와 관련하여 발생하는 분쟁을 해결하기 위하여 중재의 중립성 및 집행의 용이성 등을 더욱 확대 보장하는 추세이다. 대부분의 국가들은 이러한 중재제도의 이용 확대를 위하여, 중재를 통해 분쟁을 해결하겠다고 하는 의사를 분명히 약정하고 있는 모든 중재합의를 유효한 것으로 인정하고 있다. 이는 선택적 중재합의에 대해서도 동일하게 적용되어, 당사자들이 선택적 중재합의 약정 의도에 따라서 중재와 소송 중 하나를 선택하여 분쟁을 해결하도록 하고 있다. 그러나 중국은 선택적 중재합의의 효력을 인정하지 않고 있다. 중국 법원은 당사자들이 선택적 중재합의를 약정하는 것은 중재만을 이용하겠다고 하는 확정적 의사표시를 하는 것이 아니면 또한 법원 관할권을 배제하고 있지 않다는 이유 등으로 선택적 중재합의를 무효로 인정하고 있다. 이에 따라서 본 논문에서는 중국 중재법 및 관련 법규에서 규정하고 있는 선택적 중재합의의 유효조건에 대하여 살펴보았으며, 중국 법원이 이와 관련한 사건에서 어떻게 판결을 내렸는지 확인하였다. 이를 통하여 중국의 선택적 중재합의가 가지는 문제점 및 시사점을 도출하고, 중국 기업 및 투자자와 중재계약을 체결하고자 하는 우리 기업에게 선택적 중재합의 이용과 관련한 유의점을 제시하였다.

중재합의의 요건과 효력

김지호 ( Jiho Kim ) 한국협상학회 2020 협상연구 Vol.23 No.1

An arbitration is a dispute resolution process by which parties consensually submit a dispute to an arbitrator or arbitrators to render a binding arbitral award after hearing their claims and evidences. An arbitration has been generally acknowledged as an effective dispute resolution process especially for resolving international commercial transactions and foreign investment disputes. There is a common legal framework for international arbitration which is composed of the leading international arbitration convention, the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) and a leading arbitration legislation including the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”). An arbitration agreement is a party’s agreement to submit a dispute for an arbitration. If there is no valid arbitration agreement, there is no grounds for commencing an arbitral procedure or enforcing an arbitral award. Therefore, an arbitration agreement is the fundamental element of arbitration. A legal framework for international arbitration, including the New York Convention and leading national arbitration legislations, provides a pro-arbitration regime to effectively recognize and enforce an international arbitration agreement. This treatise deals with the definition of arbitration agreement, the substantive and formal validity rules, and the legal effects of arbitration agreement, especially in the context of international legal framework for arbitration agreement. This treatise focuses on international standards and practice paying attention to the New York Convention, leading national arbitration legislation including Model Law and decisions of leading national courts. It also reviews an arbitration act of Korea, the decisions of Korean courts and the opinions of scholars and experts.

중재합의의 묵시적해지

윤은경 ( Eunkyoung Yun ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2016 홍익법학 Vol.17 No.2

중재합의란(arbitration agreement) "현재 발생하고 있거나 장래 발생할지도 모르는 분쟁을 중재에 의하여 해결하기로 하는 당사자 간의 약정"을 말하며, 중재법에서는 "계약상의 분쟁인지 여부에 관계없이 일정한 법률관계에 관하여 당사자 간에 이미 발생하였거나 앞으로 발생할 수 있는 분쟁의 전부 또는 일부를 중재에 의하여 해결하도록 하는 당사자 간의 합의"(중재법 제3조 제2호)라고 규정되어 있다. 중재합의와 관련하여서는 법리적으로나 실무적으로 중재합의의 유효성 여부가 쟁점으로 다투어진 경우가 많았다. 중재법에서는 중재합의의 서면성을 요구하였고(중재법 제8조), 법원도 서면에 의하지 아니한 중재합의의 효력을 인정하지 않는 입장을 견지해 왔다. 아울러 법원은 중재합의는 명시적이어야 하고, 묵시적인 경우 그 효력의 인정에 대해서 부정적인 입장을 취해 왔다. 한편, 중재합의가 있었음에도 당사자가 법원에 제소를 한 경우, 이를 중재합의의 묵시적인 해지로 볼 것인지 여부에 대해서 법원은 부정적인 입장을 취했다. 이는 중재합의의 존재 여부에 관해 엄격한 검토를 한 결과 그 유효성을 인정할 수 있다면, 가급적 중재합의를 존중하고자 하는 것으로 해석될 수 있다. 이러한 해석은 법원이 묵시적 계약의 해지를 쉽게 인정해 오지 않는 종래의 입장에도 부합하나 근본적으로는 중재법이 중재합의의 서면요건을 엄격하게 규정하여 왔던 것에 기인한다. 중재합의의 서면요건성의 엄격한 견지에 대해서는 비판이 있어왔고, 이에 2015. 10. 2006년 UNCITRAL(United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 국제상거래법위원회) 모델 중재법이 제시하고 있는 중재합의의 서면요건완화 입장을 수용하여 수단의 종류에 상관없이 중재합의의 내용이 기록된 경우 등에도 중재합의가 서면으로 이루어진 것으로 보도록 하는 중재법 제8조의 개정안이 정부에 의해 발의되었다. 따라서 이와 같은 개정 중재법의 시행 이후에도 향후 법원이 중재합의의 엄격한 서면요건성과 묵시적해지에 대한 부정적인 입장을 견지하는 것이 타당한 것인지 여부에 관해 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 이에 이 글에서는 중재합의의 법적성격(II)과 중재합의의 묵시적해지의 인정 여부에 관한 사례(III) 및 중재합의의 서면요건 완화 경향(IV)에 관해 중점적으로 검토하였다. 이를 종합적으로 검토한 결과, 종래 법원이 취해 왔던 중재합의의 묵시적해지에 대한 부정적 입장은 중재합의의 서면요건성의 완화 경향을 고려한 개정 중재법안과 사적자치원칙이 당사자들의 분쟁해결방법의 선택에 반영되어 나타난 중재제도의 도입취지와 그 실효성있는 운영을 위해서도 재고되어야 한다고 생각한다. Section 2 of the Article 3 of the Korean Arbitration Act(as amended in 2010, hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Act") provides that "the term "arbitration agreement" means agreement between the parties to settle, by arbitration, all or some disputes which have already occurred or might occur in the future with regard to defined legal relationships, whether contractual or not". It has been issued a lot about the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement regarding the arbitration agreement. Article 8 of the Arbitration Act provides that the form of arbitration agreement shall be in writing. Korean courts have denied the effectiveness of arbitration agreement not by in written. Also, Korean courts have held that the arbitration agreement shall be in explicit form, not by in implied form. On the other hand, Korean courts have rarely acknowledged the implied termination of arbitration agreement in case where the lawsuit has been issued despite of arbitration agreement. Considering that the courts would respect the agreement of the parties to continue the effectiveness of arbitration agreement after examination of requirement of arbitration agreement in written, such rulings of courts seem to be adequate. However, the strict requirement of arbitration agreement in written has been widely argued and therefore, the amendment of Article 8 of the Arbitration Act proposed by the Korean government in October, 2015, which reflects the 2006 UNCITRAL(United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Arbitration Law. Accordingly, courts rulings should reflect all the circumstances above in the future.

국제중재에 있어서 중재합의의 준거법 결정

이강빈(Kang-Bin Lee) 한국무역학회 2005 무역학자 전국대회 발표논문집 Vol.2005 No.8

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the party's autonomy principle and the applicable law to the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the validity of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the arbitrability of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the contracting ability of the arbitration agreement, and the applicable law to the method of the arbitration agreement. The validity of an arbitration agreement is crucially important. Generally, the legal principles to be applied are those used in determining the validity of an ordinary commercial contract; indeed, the arbitration agreement will generally be set out in an arbitration clause, which is itself part of an ordinary commercial contract. The arbitration clause is normally governed by the same law as the rest of contract and its validity will be examined under that law. If no choice of law is made by the parties with respect to the arbitration agreement-which is the stand situation-the validity of the agreement may have to decided under its proper law, or under the law of the place of arbitration, or the law of the place of enforcement. If the subject matter is not arbitrable, the arbitration agreement remains without effect. The rules determining arbitrability may differ from one country to another, from one legal system to another. If a party does not have the capacity to enter into the contract, the contract is invalid. The rules determining the capacity of a party are not uniform and they may differ from one country to another, and from one legal system to another. If a party is lacking capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused at the request of the party against whom it is invoked. This principle is laid down in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The validity of an arbitration agreement sometimes also depends on the form in which it is made. Article Ⅱ. 2 of the New York Convention states that the term "agreement in writing" shall include an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties of contained in exchange of letters or telegrams.

중재합의에 대한 새로운 고찰

손경한(Kyung-Han Sohn),심현주(Hyun-Joo Shim) 한국중재학회 2013 중재연구 Vol.23 No.1

There should be an arbitration agreement between concerned parties in order to resolve a dispute through arbitration. The arbitration procedures, including the selection of the arbitrator and the adjudicative rights of the arbitrator, are based on the arbitration agreement. In other words, the arbitration procedure and adjudication can be carried out within the boundaries of the arbitration agreement. Traditionally, the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement has been acknowledged in order to emphasize its importance and to clearly separate it from the contract. Today, when the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement is well established, overemphasizing this separability could hamper its effectiveness and the autonomy of the parties. Moreover, arbitration agreements in the past were required to be written, clarifying the existence of the agreement and determining the scope of its validity. Further, an arbitration agreement was considered as narrowly as possible. However, since arbitration has become a generalized resolution for disputes, the formal or content requirements should be reconsidered. In terms of validity, the subjective and objective scope should necessarily be extended as a means to resolve disputes related to an arbitration agreement and reduce the resolution cost and duration. Under this perspective, the arbitration theory should now focus on arbitration agreements rather than the place of arbitration. We should break from the nationalistic view, which understands that the arbitration system is a part of the national legal system and that arbitration is allowed solely by permission of the nation. Instead, we should extensively reinterpret the subject of arbitration agreement and its range of effects so that disputes can be resolved between the concerned parties under a single procedure and norm, a necessary step forward. Moreover, in spite of the positive contribution and role of the New York Convention toward the establishment and development of the international arbitration system, there should be an effort to overcome its deterioration. As mentioned in the recommendations regarding the interpretation of the arbitration agreement in the New York Convention in 2006, we should begin by striving to match the Convention as a means of interpretation with the changes of the twenty-first century. Ultimately, we should meet the demands of the new era through amendments to the Convention.

중재합의의 준거법에 관한 고찰- BNA v BNB 판결을 중심으로 -

이민규 인하대학교 법학연구소 2020 法學硏究 Vol.23 No.2

Given its nature, a number of different laws such as the law of the seat of arbitration, the governing law of the main contract, and the law of the enforcing state can be applied to an international commercial arbitration proceeding. However, it might seem odd that an arbitration agreement could have a governing law separate from that of the main contract. In practice, it is rare if not unheard of for contracting parties to specify the governing law of arbitration agreements. However, an arbitration agreement can be separable from the main contract under the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law, and other relevant legal theories. Consequently, there might arise a situation where in order to make a decision on the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, it is necessary to first determine the governing law of the arbitration agreement and evaluate the validity of the arbitration agreement. This paper addresses this issue of the governing law of arbitration agreements. Specifically, through the concept of the separability of arbitration agreements, the New York Convention, and other related legal principles, this paper explains the theoretical basis on which an arbitration agreement can have a governing law separate from that of the main contract. Afterwards, this paper briefly explains the Court of Appeal of England and Wales’ Sulamerica case, one of the most well-known cases on this issue, and the domestic law principles of several other states. Then, this paper analyzes the validation principle that Gary Born advocates, and the BNA v BNB case in which the first instance court and the Court of Appeal of Singapore reached contrasting conclusions based on the same facts. Through these cases, this paper delves into the types of problems the notion of the governing law of an arbitration agreement can cause on a practical level. The Arbitration Act of Korea does not have any provisions on the governing law of arbitration agreements and there are no applicable court cases comparable to the Sulamerica case or BNA v BNB that have directly addressed this issue. As such, based on the implications from these cases, this paper proposes an amendment to the Arbitration Act. The conclusion following the discussion above is that where contracting parties have not explicitly agreed, the Arbitration Act must be amended to deem that they intended to apply the governing law of the main contract as the law governing the arbitration agreement. For practical purposes, since there is no clear answer to this issue, contracting parties must evaluate the governing law of the arbitration agreement in the arbitration clause as a separate issue, and explicitly state it in the arbitration clause to avoid disputes as in the cases above. Simply stating that the governing law of the main contract governs all provisions within the contract including the arbitration agreement would help the parties avoid future disputes. 국제상사 중재절차에는 그 성격상 중재지법, 주된 계약의 준거법, 집행국의 법이나 중재합의의 준거법 등 서로 다른 곳들의 법이 적용될 수 있다. 주된 계약의 준거법과는 별개로 중재합의가 준거법을 따로 가질 수 있다는 사실이 다소 생소하게 들릴 수 있다. 실제로 실무에서 계약을 체결하는 당사자들이 중재합의의 준거법을 지정하는 경우는 드물다 못해 사실상 없다. 그러나 중재합의는 뉴욕협약과 모델법 등 관련 법리에 따라 독립성을 가진다. 그 결과 중재판정부가 관할권을 가지는지를 두고 중재합의의 유효성을 판단하기 위하여 중재합의의 준거법을 먼저 결정해야 하는 경우가 생길 수 있다. 이 논문은 이 중재합의의 준거법이란 쟁점을 다룬다. 구체적으로, 중재합의의 준거법이 어떤 논리에 따라 주된 계약의 준거법과는 별개로 존재할 수 있는지를 중재합의의 독립성과 뉴욕협약 등 관련 법리를 통해 설명하고, 이 쟁점에 관하여 가장 널리 알려진 영국 항소법원의 Sulamerica 판결과 다른 국가들의 국내법 입장을 간단하게 설명한다. 그다음으로는 국제상사중재의 거장인 Gary Born이 옹호하는 validation 원칙과 2019년에 싱가포르 1심법원과 항소법원이 같은 사안을 놓고 서로 다른 판결을 내린 BNA v BNB 판결을 분석한다. 이 판결을 통하여 중재합의의 준거법이란 개념이 실무에서 어떤 문제를 초래할 수 있는지를 살펴본다. 우리 중재법은 중재합의의 준거법에 관하여 별도로 규정하고 있지 않고, Sulamerica 판결이나 BNA v BNB 판결처럼 이 쟁점을 직접적으로 다룬 국내법원 판결 역시 아직 없으므로, 위 판례들을 통해 얻을만한 시사점을 바탕으로 중재법 개정방안을 제안한다. 위 논의를 바탕으로 내리는 이 논문의 결론은, 당사자들의 명시적인 합의가 없다면 주된 계약의 준거법을 당사자들이 묵시적으로 지정한 중재합의의 준거법으로 보는 방향으로 중재법을 개정해야 한다는 것이다. 실무적 함의는, 현재로서는 명확한 해답이 없으므로 위 판결들에서와 같은 분쟁을 피하기 위해서는 계약 협상 단계에서 중재합의를 포함하는 중재조항을 작성하는 과정에서 중재합의의 준거법을 별개의 쟁점으로 검토하고 중재조항에 명시적으로 반영해야 한다는 것이다. 간단하게 ‘주된 계약의 준거법이 중재조항을 포함하여 모든 조항의 준거법이 된다’는 내용만 추가하더라도 분쟁을 피할 수 있을 것이다.

An Empirical Study on the Effectiveness of Pathological Arbitration Agreement by Chinese Courts

Hyunsoo Ha 한국무역금융보험학회(구 한국무역보험학회) 2020 무역보험연구 Vol.21 No.2

중재합의를 약정하는 당사자 대부분은 법률 전문가가 아니기 때문에 까다로운 중재합의 유효 조건을 요구하고 있는 중국 중재법의 규정에 따라서 하자 없는 중재합의를 약정하는 것은 쉬 운 일이 아니다. 이에 따라서 본 연구에서는 중국 법원이 하자중재합의 효력과 관련하여 내린 144건의 판결을 학술DB인 북대법보(北大法寶)와 중국온라인중재(中國仲裁在線) 등을 통해 수 집하여 분석하였다. 또한 이러한 사례 분석을 통해 중국 법원이 중국 중재법 및 ‘중재법 사법 해석’에 규정되어 있는 하자중재합의관련 규정을 어떻게 적용하고 있는지에 대해서도 확인하 였다. 그리고 중국에 진출해 있는 우리나라 투자 기업들이 중국에서 중재합의를 약정하는 경 우에 하자중재합의와 관련하여 유의하여야 할 사항들에 대해서도 정리하였다. 하자중재합의에 대한 효력 인정은 중재합의 당사자의 중재의사를 순조롭게 실현하는 것과 관 련되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 중재라는 민간분쟁해결메커니즘에 대한 한 국가의 사법적 지지 정도를 반영하는 것이다. 중국의 중재법은 중재기관을 명확하게 약정하는 것을 중재합의의 유효 요건의 하나로 규정하고 있는데, 이는 중재를 통해 분쟁을 해결하겠다고 하는 당사자의 의사 만 분명히 약정하고 있으면 유효한 중재합의로 인정하고 있는 국제적인 추세에 역행하는 것이 다. 따라서 중국은 중재기관 선정과 같이 중재합의 유효 요건에 대한 과도한 제한을 완화하여 하자중재합의 문제에 대한 근본적인 해결책을 찾아야 할 것이다. Purpose : This study confirms how the court of China recognizes the effectiveness of the pathological arbitration agreement, and summarizes the matters to be noted in relation to the pathological arbitration agreement when Korean investment companies entered in China arrange an arbitration agreement in China. Research design, data, methodology : This study analyzed 144 judgment cases regarding the effectiveness of the pathological arbitration agreement, collected from academic databases such as PKU Law and Chinese Online Arbitration. In addition, through this case analysis, this study confirmed how the Chinese courts applied the provisions relevant to pathological arbitration agreement in ‘Intermediate Interpretation of Arbitration Law’ and the Chinese Arbitration Law. Results : China needs to find a fundamental solution regarding the problem of pathological arbitration agreement through loosening excessive restrictions on the validity requirements of the arbitration agreement, such as selecting an arbitration institution. Conclusions : The approval of the effectiveness of the pathological arbitration agreement is not only related to the smooth realization of the arbitrator's intent by parties of arbitration, but also reflects the degree of judicial support of the country about the arbitration, a civil dispute resolution mechanism. China's arbitration law stipulates to clearly agree the arbitration institution as one of the valid requirements of an arbitration agreement. This means a backward movement to the international trend that is approved as a valid arbitration agreement if only the parties' intention to resolve the dispute through arbitration is clearly agreed.

선택적 중재합의의 유효성에 관한 법적 연구

김순이(Kim Soon-Lee) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2012 東亞法學 Vol.- No.56

중재는 분쟁당사자간의 합의에 따라 현존 또는 장래에 발생할 사법상의 분쟁을 법원에 의뢰하지 않고 당사자 자신이 선정한 중재인이 내린 중재판정에 복종하는 분쟁해결 제도로서 국내적으로는 법원의 확정판결과 동일한 효력을 가지고, 국제적으로 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행을 용이하게 하는 효력을 가지고 있다. 또한 중재를 포함한 대안적 분쟁해결 역시 국가가 사법권능의 일부로 인정한 규범과 절차규정에 의해 운용되고 그 효율성이 인정되고 있는 상황이므로 중재는 사법절차에 대한 대안임에도 여전히 법체계에 확고히 내포된 절차로 보아야 할 것이다. 따라서 대안적 분쟁해결 절차로서의 중재제도 역시 사적당사자의 제도에 대한 접근을 확대할 수 있다는 점에서 그 의의를 발견할 수 있을 것이다. 중재합의는 분쟁당사자가 중재제도를 이용하기 위한 전제조건이다. 그런데 최근 들어 중재합의 내용이 ‘재판’ 및 ‘조정’ 또는 ‘중재’, 둘 혹은 셋 중 하나를 선택하도록 규정된 이른바 ‘선택적 중재합의’가 등장하게 되었다. 문제는 이러한 선택적 중재합의가 과연 일반적인 중재합의로서의 자격이 있는가, 즉 분쟁해결방법 중 소송절차를 통한 판결을 배제하고 중재에 구속력을 부여할 수 있는가의 여부이다. 현대 들어 각국의 국내법은 법원으로부터의 중재의 자율성을 인정하는 추세로 변모하고 있으며, 최근에는 법원 스스로 불필요하거나 과도한 소송사건의 증가를 피하기 위해서라도 소송 외적 분쟁해결 방식을 적극 지지하는 입장으로 바뀌게 되었다. 이러한 법원과 중재법 간의 관계가 변화함에 따라 선택적 중재합의도 그 유효성을 인정받을 수 있는 환경에 놓이게 되었다. 국제상사거래에서 중재의 역할은 점점 더 큰 비중을 차지하고 있는 실정인데, 선택적 중재합의를 중재합의로 인정하지 않는다면 일반적인 중재합의에 부담을 느끼게 되어 중재합의를 맺는 당사자가 줄어들고 법원은 다시 사소한 분쟁도 떠맡아야 할 것이므로 먼저 선택적 중재합의를 유효로 본 이후 일방 당사자가 적극적으로 소송을 원하는 경우에 한하여 소송절차를 계시하는 것이 타당하다고 여겨진다. Arbitration is a conflict solving system in which a disputing party obeys the arbitral award given by the mediator chosen by himself/herself according to the agreement between the disputing parties, rather than asking the court to intervene a present or future judicial conflict. Nationally, it has the same effect as that of an irrevocable judgment by the court, and internationally, it has the effect to facilitate the consent and enforcement by a foreign arbitral award. In addition, as an alternative solution of conflict including arbitration is also managed by the rules and codes of procedure which the government has acknowledge as a part of judicial power and its effectiveness is being recognized, arbitration should be considered to be a process that still firmly belongs to the legal system even though it is an alternative to the judicial procedure. Accordingly, the arbitration system as an alternative process to solve a conflict also has its meaning in that it can extend an individual party’s approach to the system. Arbitration agreement is the precondition for a disputing party to use the arbitration system. However, recently, so-called “optional arbitration agreement” has appeared which regulates the content of arbitration agreement to be chosen from one among “trial,” “mediation” or “arbitration.” The problem is whether this optional arbitration agreement has the qualification as a general arbitration agreement or not, i.e., whether it can exclude the judgement through a judicial procedure and impose binding force on arbitration or not among the methods to solve a conflict. In the present time, the domestic laws of each country has altered to acknowledge the autonomy of arbitration from the court, and recently, the court itself has changed its position into active support for the solutions of conflicts external to a lawsuit in order to prevent the unnecessary or excessive increase of lawsuits. As the relation between the court and the arbitration law has switched like this, optional arbitration agreement is now in the situation whose validity can be acknowledged. The role of arbitration in international trading deals is becoming more crucial in these days, so if optional arbitration agreement is not accepted as arbitration agreement, less party will have arbitration agreement because of the burden of general arbitration agreement and the court will have to take even trivial conflicts again. Therefore, it is appropriate that optional arbitration agreement is admitted as valid first, and the suit procedure should begin only when a disputing party actively wants a lawsuit.