International Arbitration 2026 Comparisons

International arbitration is well established in the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), although its prevalence varies significantly depending on whether a dispute is purely domestic or cross-border.

In practice, litigation remains the more commonly used method of dispute resolution for purely domestic disputes, and Korean parties continue to make extensive use of the domestic court system. By contrast, international arbitration is widely used to resolve cross-border commercial disputes involving Korean parties, particularly where the disputes are of substantial value. Its use increased significantly following the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, when Korea saw a marked rise in cross-border M&A transactions, foreign investment and related disputes. Since then, Korean companies have frequently included arbitration clauses in their contracts, particularly in those involving foreign counterparties or cross-border performance.

Korea’s well-established arbitration practice is underpinned by a long-standing legal and institutional framework. The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) was first enacted in 1966 and has since been amended several times. Korea also acceded to the New York Convention in 1973, and foreign arbitral awards are generally recognised and enforced in Korea subject to the limited grounds for refusal under the Convention and the KAA. In addition, the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act was enacted in 2016, reflecting the Korean government’s policy objective of promoting Korea as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction and a regional hub for international dispute resolution. Korea also has a dedicated arbitral institution, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB), which was established in 1966. KCAB recently completed a comprehensive revision of its International Arbitration Rules, which took effect on 1 January 2026.

Against this background, Korea has also sought to strengthen Seoul’s position as a seat of international arbitration. Although Seoul continues to compete with more established regional seats, its development as an arbitral seat is supported by Korea’s legislative reforms, government policy promoting the arbitration industry, the continued growth of Korea’s arbitration market, and an increasingly arbitration-friendly legal community.

While arbitration is increasingly used across a wide range of industries in Korea, certain industries continue to generate more international arbitration activity than others. Although KCAB’s statistics do not fully capture all arbitration activity in Korea, the most recent 2025 KCAB Annual Report indicates that construction, general commercial transaction, IT, trade and maritime were among the major sectors in KCAB-administered cases. These sectors tend to generate more international arbitration activity because they frequently involve cross-border transactions, foreign counterparties, high-value contracts, and technically complex issues.

The principal arbitral institution in Korea is the KCAB. Established in 1966, KCAB is Korea’s only arbitral institution designated as a commercial arbitral institution under the KAA. Of course, parties may nevertheless choose a foreign institution or ad hoc arbitration for arbitrations seated in Korea. KCAB has administered approximately 7,000 arbitration cases over the past 60 years. In April 2018, KCAB established KCAB International as an independent division to meet the growing demand for cross-border commercial dispute resolution.

KCAB has continued to modernise its rules and procedures, most recently through a comprehensive revision of the KCAB International Arbitration Rules (the “KCAB Rules”), which took effect on 1 January 2026. Key changes include the establishment of the KCAB International Arbitration Court, an independent body responsible for key case-administrative functions; the reorganisation of the existing expedited procedure and the introduction of a separate fast-track procedure to enhance speed and cost-efficiency; and new provisions addressing the use of technology and artificial intelligence in arbitral proceedings.

That said, Korean companies frequently agree to arbitration under major foreign institutional rules, including those of the ICC, SIAC, HKIAC and LCIA, depending on the counterparty, governing law, seat, transaction structure and the parties’ relative bargaining power. The active use of foreign institutions by Korean parties is illustrated by SIAC’s 2024 statistics, according to which Korean parties ranked first among SIAC’s foreign users, with 295 parties involved in new cases.

Korea does not currently have an international commercial court or a specialised arbitration court that is established as an independent institution exclusively to hear disputes relating to international or domestic arbitration. However, at the lower courts and appeal courts, arbitration-related cases are generally assigned to designated divisions.

Arbitration-related court applications are handled by ordinary Korean courts in accordance with the KAA. At first instance, jurisdiction generally lies with the competent district court, as determined under Article 7 of the KAA by reference to factors such as the seat of arbitration, the location of the relevant evidence or assets, and the respondent’s domicile or place of business, depending on the nature of the application.  The nationality of the parties is not itself relevant to this determination. Appellate review is available before a High Court and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, as applicable.

This will change in part from 1 March 2028, when Korea’s first specialised maritime and international commercial courts are scheduled to commence operations in Busan and Incheon. Where the dispute submitted to arbitration falls within their jurisdiction, the KAA will direct arbitration-related applications to those courts rather than to the ordinary district courts, unless the parties have designated a different district court or branch court in their arbitration agreement. The scope of the new courts’ jurisdiction, which will extend to certain commercial disputes with a foreign element, remains to be defined by Supreme Court rules.

The national legislation governing arbitration in Korea is the KAA. The KAA was first enacted in 1966 and has since been amended on several occasions. The most significant amendments are the comprehensive amendment of 31 December 1999, which substantially adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the 2016 amendment, which reflected key elements of the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Before the 1999 amendment, the KAA consisted of only 18 provisions. The 1999 amendment substantially revised the entire statute and expanded it to 41 provisions, adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law as the basic framework for Korean arbitration law. The Model Law was not incorporated verbatim; rather, Korea modified and supplemented certain provisions to fit its domestic legal system. One notable feature of the KAA is that it regulates both domestic and international arbitration under a single statute, applying broadly the same standards and procedures to both.

Although formally a partial amendment, the 2016 amendment was also significant because it addressed several practical issues in the operation of the KAA and incorporated key features of the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law. Among other things, the amendment:

• expanded the scope of arbitrable disputes;
• broadened the circumstances in which an arbitration agreement is deemed to be in writing;
• introduced express provisions on the allocation of arbitration costs and the award of interest;
• simplified the documentary requirements for recognition and enforcement of awards; and
• replaced the judgment procedure for recognition and enforcement with a decision procedure.

The amendment also introduced a detailed statutory regime for interim measures through a new chapter of the KAA. Korea did not, however, adopt the preliminary order mechanism found in the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law.

The KAA differs from the Model Law in two other ways. It contains no equivalent of Article 34(4) of the Model Law, so a party cannot ask a Korean court hearing a set-aside application to suspend the proceedings and give the tribunal an opportunity to eliminate the grounds for setting aside. A further difference is that the KAA permits either party to seek court review of a tribunal’s preliminary ruling on its own jurisdiction, regardless of whether the tribunal rules that it has or lacks jurisdiction, whereas Article 16(3) of the Model Law allows recourse only where the tribunal rules that it has jurisdiction.

Amendments to the Court Organization Act, promulgated on 17 March 2026, will establish Korea’s first specialised maritime and international commercial courts in Busan and Incheon with effect from 1 March 2028. The KAA was amended at the same time to accommodate the new courts. Where the dispute submitted to arbitration falls within their jurisdiction, and unless the parties have designated a different district court or branch court in their arbitration agreement, arbitration-related applications are to be made to the new courts rather than to the ordinary district courts, whether for the appointment or challenge of an arbitrator, the setting aside of an award, or its recognition and enforcement.

The new courts’ jurisdiction covers maritime disputes and, separately, commercial disputes with a foreign element. The second category is defined broadly in the Court Organization Act, although its detailed scope will be further specified by Supreme Court rules that have yet to be issued. Parties entering into or performing contracts with a foreign element should monitor these developments closely.

Under Korean law, an arbitration agreement must be an agreement between the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes that have arisen or may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship. Article 8 of the KAA governs the formal validity of arbitration agreements.

The KAA requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing, and an agreement that does not satisfy this requirement is invalid. The writing requirement, however, is interpreted broadly. An arbitration agreement may be contained in a separate agreement or within the main contract and is deemed to be in writing where its terms are recorded, regardless of the form or means by which the agreement was made.

An arbitration agreement may also be established where one party alleges its existence in a statement of claim or defence and the other party does not dispute it. Further, where a contract refers to a document containing an arbitration clause, the reference constitutes an arbitration agreement if it makes that clause part of the contract. Accordingly, Korean law does not require an arbitration agreement to be set out in a separately signed document, provided that its terms are recorded and the parties’ agreement to arbitrate can be established.

Korean law does not expressly list all non-arbitrable matters; arbitrability is determined by interpreting the KAA, together with any restrictions under other applicable statutes.

Article 3(1) of the KAA defines arbitration as a procedure to resolve, by arbitral award rather than court judgment, “disputes over property rights or disputes based on non-property rights that the parties can resolve through settlement”. This wording was introduced by the 2016 amendment; the previous version referred more broadly to “private law disputes”. Under the current wording, property-right disputes are generally arbitrable, while non-property-right disputes are arbitrable only where the parties have the power to dispose of or settle the matter. The KAA does not further define the scope of such non-property disputes.

Matters generally regarded as non-arbitrable include criminal liability, certain family-law matters concerning personal status, and disputes concerning administrative acts or sanctions, as these are not matters that the parties may freely resolve by settlement. Arbitrability may be less clear in regulated areas such as competition law, intellectual property, securities, labour and employment, and insolvency. Their treatment is not always straightforward and may depend on the relief sought, the statutory framework, case law and practice, as well as academic commentary.

Accordingly, where an arbitration clause is included in a contract involving potentially sensitive or regulated subject matter, it is necessary to consider the specific circumstances of the dispute, applicable statutes, relevant case law and practice, and academic commentary. In general, Korean law takes a relatively broad approach to the arbitrability of commercial disputes, but matters involving such issues may be subject to limitations.

Korean courts take an arbitration-friendly approach to arbitration agreements and give effect to the parties’ intention to arbitrate where that intention can reasonably be ascertained. With respect to the law governing the arbitration agreement, the Supreme Court has held, in the context of enforcement proceedings, that the formation and validity of an arbitration agreement are governed by the law chosen by the parties and, in the absence of such a choice, by the law of the seat of arbitration, pursuant to Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention (see Supreme Court Judgment No 2017Da225084 dated 26 July 2018).

As to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, Article 9 of the KAA requires a Korean court to dismiss an action where the dispute is subject to a valid arbitration agreement, provided that the defendant raises the arbitration agreement as a defence before making submissions on the merits. The court may proceed with the action only where it finds that the arbitration agreement is void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Accordingly, arbitration agreements are enforced by Korean courts if they are valid and properly invoked.

Korean courts also tend to interpret the scope of arbitration agreements broadly. The Supreme Court has held that, where the parties agreed to resolve “future disputes” by arbitration, all disputes arising out of the relevant legal relationship should generally be regarded as falling within the scope of the arbitration agreement, absent special circumstances limiting that scope (see Supreme Court Judgment No 2010Da76573 dated 22 December 2011).

Korean courts have also shown a willingness to uphold arbitration clauses despite defects or ambiguities. Recently, the Supreme Court held that a court should not deny the validity of an arbitration agreement merely because it referred to a non-existent arbitral institution, omitted the seat and language of arbitration, and contained inconsistencies between the Korean and English versions of the contract. The court stressed that, based on a holistic interpretation of the wording of the arbitration agreement, the circumstances in which it was included, and other relevant factors, the parties could reasonably be found to have had a genuine intention to arbitrate (see Supreme Court Judgment No 2024Da243172 dated 23 January 2025).

That said, Korean courts do distinguish between a binding arbitration agreement and a merely optional dispute resolution clause. Where a clause simply provides several possible modes of dispute resolution without clearly requiring arbitration, it may raise enforceability issues. In particular, an optional arbitration clause will not necessarily preclude court proceedings unless the clause and the parties’ conduct show a sufficiently clear agreement to arbitrate. Case law suggests that such a clause may be treated as effective only where one party elects arbitration and the other party participates in the arbitral proceedings without objection. Conversely, where the other party objects to arbitration in a timely manner, the clause may not be treated as a binding arbitration agreement (see, eg, Supreme Court Judgment No 2003Da318 dated 22 August 2003; Supreme Court Judgment No 2004Da42166 dated 11 November 2004).

Article 17(1) of the KAA expressly recognises the doctrine of separability. An arbitration clause forming part of a contract is treated as an agreement independent of the other clauses of that contract, and an arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objection to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, even where the validity, termination or non-existence of the main contract is in dispute, the arbitration clause may remain valid and effective, and the dispute may therefore still be resolved by arbitration.

There are no specific statutory qualifications for arbitrators under the KAA. Parties are free to agree on the number of arbitrators and on the procedure for appointing them, and no person may be precluded from acting as an arbitrator by reason of nationality unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Party autonomy may, however, be qualified by the arbitration rules the parties have chosen. For example, the 2026 KCAB Rules require, in principle, that the sole or presiding arbitrator does not have the same nationality as any party in a case where the KCAB is to appoint an arbitrator and the parties are of different nationalities. Also, under the same Rules, where the arbitration agreement was entered into on or after 1 January 2026 and the Expedited Procedure applies, a sole arbitrator must be appointed. The parties may nevertheless agree to opt out of that procedure. In fast-track proceedings, a sole arbitrator is generally appointed, although the KCAB International Arbitration Court may refer the case to three arbitrators where the arbitration agreement so provides and the Court considers a three-member tribunal appropriate.

The parties’ agreed procedure for selecting arbitrators, including any procedure provided for in their chosen institutional rules, applies first. If the parties have not agreed on an appointment procedure, Article 12(3) of the KAA applies. If an agreed procedure fails, Article 12(4) permits a party to request the court or an arbitral institution designated by the court to make the necessary appointment.

In the case of a sole arbitrator, if the parties fail to agree on the appointment within 30 days after receiving a request from the other party, the arbitrator may be appointed, upon a party’s request, by the court or by an arbitral institution designated by the court. In the case of a three-member tribunal, each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two party-appointed arbitrators appoint the third arbitrator. If a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days after receiving a request to do so, or if the two arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator within 30 days of their appointment, the appointment may likewise be made by the court or by an arbitral institution designated by the court upon a party’s request.

The Korean Supreme Court has taken a relatively supportive approach to court assistance in the appointment of arbitrators. In a 2022 decision, the Supreme Court held that, where an application for the appointment of an arbitrator is made, the court should proceed directly to appoint an arbitrator, unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision No 2020Geu633 dated 29 December 2022). Such circumstances may include cases where the arbitration agreement clearly fails to satisfy the formal requirements under Article 8 of the KAA, or where the agreed appointment procedure under Article 12(2) has not been followed before the application is made.

The KAA currently does not provide a separate default appointment mechanism specifically for multiparty arbitrations. Accordingly, in multiparty cases, the appointment procedure will generally depend on the parties’ agreement and, where institutional arbitration rules apply, the relevant rules of the chosen arbitral institution.

Korean courts may intervene in the selection of arbitrators, but only in limited circumstances. As noted above, where the parties have not agreed on an appointment procedure and an appointment is not made within the prescribed period, Article 12(3) of the KAA permits the court, or an arbitral institution designated by the court, to make the appointment. Where the parties have agreed on an appointment procedure, Article 12(4) permits the same intervention if a party fails to appoint an arbitrator under that procedure, if the parties or two arbitrators fail to make an appointment under that procedure, or if an institution or other appointing authority entrusted with the appointment fails to do so.

The court’s role is therefore limited to ensuring that the arbitral tribunal can be constituted where the applicable appointment mechanism does not result in an appointment. The court does not have the general power to disregard the parties’ agreement or to appoint arbitrators simply because one party is dissatisfied with the agreed procedure. Further, under Article 12(5) of the KAA, no appeal may be made against a decision of the court or the court-designated arbitral institution appointing an arbitrator under Article 12(3) or 12(4). Korean courts may also become involved in challenges to arbitrators, as further discussed below.

Under Article 13(2) of the KAA, an arbitrator may be challenged if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, or if the arbitrator does not possess the qualifications agreed by the parties. The parties may agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator under Article 14(1). Failing such agreement, Article 14(2) provides that the challenging party must submit a written statement of the grounds for challenge to the tribunal within 15 days from the constitution of the tribunal or from becoming aware of the grounds for challenge. If the challenged arbitrator does not resign and the other party does not agree to the challenge, the tribunal decides the challenge.

Under Article 14(3) of the KAA, if a challenge under the agreed or statutory procedure is unsuccessful, the challenging party may request the court to decide on the challenge within 30 days of receiving notice of the decision rejecting the challenge. The arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings and render an award while the court application is pending. The court’s decision is not subject to appeal.

Separately, under Article 15, an arbitrator’s mandate may be terminated if the arbitrator becomes legally or factually unable to perform their functions or otherwise fails to act without undue delay. If a dispute arises over the termination of the mandate, either party may request the court to decide the matter, and the court’s decision is not subject to appeal.

The KAA requires arbitrators to be impartial and independent. Under Article 13(1) of the KAA, a prospective or appointed arbitrator must disclose without delay any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence. Such circumstances also constitute grounds for challenge under Article 13(2). Although the KAA does not define them exhaustively, relevant factors may include a financial, professional or personal relationship with a party, an interest in the outcome of the dispute, prior involvement in the dispute, or other circumstances suggesting a conflict of interest.

The KCAB Rules contain similar requirements. Under Article 10, arbitrators must remain impartial and independent, and prospective arbitrators are required to disclose any circumstances that may give rise to reasonable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. Arbitrators in KCAB-administered cases must also comply with the KCAB Code of Ethics for Arbitrators.

Korea recognises the principle of competence-competence. Under Article 17(1) of the KAA, a tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, a jurisdictional objection must generally be raised before the tribunal in the first instance, subject to court review as provided under Article 17(6).

Court intervention in jurisdictional matters is available but limited. Under Article 17(6) of the KAA, where the tribunal rules on its jurisdiction as a preliminary question, a party may request the competent court to review that ruling within 30 days of receiving notice. Following the 2016 KAA amendment, this mechanism applies not only to a positive ruling that the tribunal has jurisdiction, but also to a negative ruling that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction. While such court review is available, Korean courts generally take an arbitration-friendly approach and do not intervene unnecessarily in arbitral proceedings. During court review, the tribunal may continue the proceedings and render an award.

Jurisdictional issues may also arise before the courts in other procedural contexts. For example, if a party commences court proceedings notwithstanding an arbitration agreement, the court may consider the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement under Article 9 of the KAA. Jurisdiction may also be reviewed at the setting-aside or recognition and enforcement stages, particularly where a party argues that there was no valid arbitration agreement, that the tribunal exceeded the scope of its authority, or that the subject matter was not arbitrable.

A party wishing to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction must raise that objection before the tribunal no later than the submission of its statement of defence, under Article 17(2) of the KAA. A party is not precluded from raising a jurisdictional objection merely because it participated in the appointment or constitution of the tribunal. However, if the objection is that the tribunal has exceeded the scope of its authority, the objection must be raised promptly after the relevant issue arises.

If the tribunal decides the jurisdictional objection as a preliminary matter, a party may seek court review within 30 days of receiving notice of that decision under Article 17(6). If the tribunal instead deals with jurisdiction together with the merits, the jurisdictional issue may be raised later in an application to set aside the award or in recognition or enforcement proceedings.

Korean courts are generally understood to conduct a de novo review of jurisdictional issues. The court is not formally bound by the tribunal’s own determination of jurisdiction. This applies to issues such as the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and whether the subject matter is arbitrable.

However, the same approach does not necessarily apply to questions of admissibility or procedural management. Such issues, including whether evidence is admissible, or whether a procedural step was timely, are generally left to the tribunal, unless they amount to a serious procedural defect or otherwise provide a ground for setting aside or refusing enforcement.

Where a party commences court proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement, the defendant may invoke the arbitration agreement under Article 9(1) of the KAA. The defendant must do so before making submissions on the merits. If properly invoked, the court must dismiss the action unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.

In practice, Korean courts generally enforce valid arbitration agreements and, where the parties’ intention to arbitrate can reasonably be ascertained, are reluctant to allow court proceedings to continue.

As a general rule, a tribunal may not assume jurisdiction over individuals or entities that are neither parties to the arbitration agreement nor otherwise legally bound by it. Korean law does not recognise a broad doctrine, such as the group of companies doctrine, under which an arbitration agreement may be extended to non-signatories based on their role within the same corporate group.

However, a non-signatory may be bound where there is a specific legal basis under the applicable law, such as assignment of contractual rights, subrogation, or universal succession (including through merger or inheritance), an arbitration clause in a framework agreement intended to cover related contracts, or piercing of the corporate veil. Korean courts and tribunals applying Korean law would assess this on a case-by-case basis, considering the wording of the arbitration agreement, the contractual structure, and the circumstances surrounding the conclusion and performance of the relevant contracts. These principles are not limited to domestic third parties, and a foreign non-signatory may also be bound if the applicable law permits such extension.

Under Article 18(1) of the KAA, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a tribunal may, at the request of a party, grant interim measures it considers necessary. Article 18(2) provides that these are temporary measures issued before the final award. Such measures may include orders to maintain or restore the status quo, prevent existing or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral proceedings, preserve assets against which an award may be enforced, or preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the dispute.

For interim measures other than those for preserving evidence, Article 18-2(1) requires the applicant to establish prima facie that, without the measure, it may suffer harm that cannot adequately be compensated by damages and that this harm substantially outweighs the harm likely to be caused to the opposing party. The applicant must also establish a reasonable possibility of success on the merits, although the tribunal is not bound by that assessment when deciding the merits. For evidence-preservation measures, Article 18-2(2) allows the tribunal to apply these requirements only to the extent it considers appropriate.

Interim measures ordered by the tribunal are binding, and Article 18-7 of the KAA allows Korean courts to recognise and enforce them. The tribunal may also modify, suspend or terminate an interim measure under Article 18-3, require security from the applicant under Article 18-4, require disclosure of material changes in circumstances under Article 18-5, and award costs and damages under Article 18-6 if the measure is later found to have been unjustified.

Under Article 10 of the KAA, a party to an arbitration agreement may request interim measures of protection from a court before or during arbitral proceedings. Article 2(1) of the KAA provides that Article 10 applies even where the seat of arbitration has not yet been determined or is outside Korea. Accordingly, Korean courts may grant interim relief in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations.

Korean courts may grant the provisional remedies generally available under Korean civil procedure and enforcement law, principally provisional attachment and provisional injunctions. In addition, under Article 18-7 of the KAA, Korean courts may recognise and enforce interim measures issued by tribunals, subject to the grounds for refusal set out in Article 18-8.

The KAA itself does not provide for emergency arbitrators. Emergency arbitrators may, however, be available under applicable institutional rules, including the 2026 KCAB Rules. Under Appendix 3 of the Rules, a party may apply for emergency measures before the tribunal is constituted. An emergency arbitrator may grant any emergency measures considered appropriate by way of an order or interim award. Such measures are binding on the parties but do not bind the tribunal, which may approve, modify, suspend or terminate them once constituted. The appointment of an emergency arbitrator does not preclude a party from seeking interim relief from Korean courts.

The KAA does not expressly empower courts or tribunals to order security for costs in arbitral proceedings. It does, however, authorise tribunals to require security in connection with interim measures. Under Article 18-4, a tribunal may require a party requesting an interim measure to provide appropriate security. Under Article 18-7(3), when a court is asked to recognise or enforce an interim measure, it may require the applicant to provide security if the tribunal has not already required it or if necessary to protect the rights of third parties.

Article 20 of the KAA establishes a framework of procedural autonomy by giving priority to the parties’ agreement on procedural matters while, in the absence of such agreement, conferring broad discretion on the tribunal to determine the conduct of the proceedings.

Under Article 20(1), which is based on Article 19 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, the parties may freely agree on the procedure governing the arbitration, provided that their agreement does not contravene the mandatory provisions of the KAA. These include Article 19 of the KAA, which requires that the parties be treated equally and given a full opportunity to present their case.

Consistent with the principle of party autonomy, the parties may agree on specific procedural arrangements or adopt a particular set of arbitration rules, which then form part of their agreement on the arbitral procedure.

In the absence of such agreement, Article 20(2) authorises the tribunal to conduct the arbitration in such a manner as it considers appropriate.

The KAA does not prescribe a detailed set of mandatory procedural steps applicable to every arbitration. Instead, consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law, it grants the parties and the tribunal broad procedural autonomy, subject to certain mandatory procedural safeguards.

The KAA does not exhaustively identify its mandatory provisions. It is, however, well established that Article 19, which requires the parties to be treated equally and given a full opportunity to present their case, is mandatory.

In practice, whether the parties’ agreement or the conduct of the arbitral proceedings infringes these fundamental procedural rights is determined on a case-by-case basis.

The KAA grants broad procedural powers to tribunals while imposing fundamental duties to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. These include:

• Duty of Impartiality and Disclosure: Article 13(1) requires a prospective or appointed arbitrator to disclose without delay any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence.
• Duty to Ensure Due process: Throughout the proceedings, the tribunal must treat the parties equally and give each party a full opportunity to present its case (Article 19).
• Power to Rule on its Own Jurisdiction: Under the principle of competence-competence, the tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objection concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement (Article 17(1)).
• Power to Grant Interim Measures: Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the tribunal may, at a party’s request, grant any interim measures it considers necessary (Article 18(1)). It may also require the requesting party to provide appropriate security (Article 18-4).
• Broad Discretion in Conducting the Proceedings: In the absence of party agreement, the tribunal has broad discretion to conduct the arbitration as it considers appropriate (Article 20(2)). This discretion is subject to the mandatory requirements of Article 19.
• Power to Determine Evidentiary Matters: The tribunal may determine the admissibility, relevance and weight of any evidence (Article 20(2)). Where the 2026 KCAB Rules apply, Article 27.1 also permits the tribunal to order the parties to produce documents or other evidence or make property, sites or objects available for inspection.
• Other Procedural Powers: In the absence of party agreement, the tribunal shall determine the seat and language of the arbitration (Articles 21(2) and 23(1)). It may also decide whether to hold oral hearings or proceed on a documents-only basis (Article 25(1)) and appoint experts (Article 27).
• Power to Terminate the Proceedings: The tribunal must terminate the arbitral proceedings when it finds their continuation unnecessary or impossible (Article 33(2)).
• Power to Allocate Costs and Award Interest: The tribunal may determine the allocation of arbitration costs and award delay interest (Articles 34-2 and 34-3).

Under Articles 24 and 24-2(1) of the Foreign Legal Consultant Act, a foreign-licensed lawyer (regardless of whether he or she is registered as a foreign legal consultant in Korea) may represent a party in an international arbitration case seated in Korea, provided that the representation does not concern matters governed by the laws of Korea.

For a foreign-licensed lawyer who is not a foreign legal consultant registered in Korea, Article 24-2(2) of the same Act provides that, in principle, he or she shall not stay in Korea for 90 days or more in any year in connection with any arbitration matter.

Apart from these restrictions, Korean law does not require particular qualifications for legal representatives to appear in domestic or international arbitrations seated in Korea.

As a general matter, the parties may determine whether to submit most of their documentary evidence at the outset or at a later stage of the proceedings.

This freedom is subject to any procedural agreement between the parties. In addition, under its general authority to conduct the proceedings under Article 20(2) of the KAA, the tribunal may require a party to identify in advance the documents or evidence on which it intends to rely, or produce specified documents or evidence within a prescribed period.

The KAA does not provide for common law style discovery or disclosure in arbitration. Even where the seat is in Korea, however, the parties may agree to adopt document production procedures. Article 27.1 of the 2026 KCAB Rules expressly empowers the tribunal to order the production of documents or other evidence. In practice, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration are frequently adopted for this purpose. Ultimately, the tribunal determines the scope and manner of document production and whether any aspect of the agreed procedure is inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of Korean law.

The KAA is otherwise silent on specific rules governing privilege, witness statements or cross-examination. These matters are generally governed by the parties’ agreement, any applicable institutional rules and the directions of the tribunal.

The KAA does not prescribe detailed rules governing the taking of evidence. Unless the parties have agreed on procedural rules, the KAA grants the tribunal broad discretion over evidentiary matters. This discretion includes the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance and weight of any evidence (Article 20(2)), as well as to determine the evidentiary procedures appropriate for the arbitration.

While Korean civil procedural law generally does not impose rigid restrictions on the admissibility of evidence, arbitral proceedings seated in Korea are not bound by the evidentiary rules governing domestic court proceedings. Accordingly, the tribunal may determine the applicable evidentiary standards and principles, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the applicable law and any applicable procedural rules.

As previously mentioned, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration are commonly adopted or used as guidance in international arbitrations seated in Korea.

Article 28(1) of the KAA authorises the tribunal, either on its own initiative or at the request of a party, to seek assistance from a competent court in taking evidence. The tribunal may request the court to take evidence itself or to order a witness or document holder, including a non-party, to appear before the tribunal or produce necessary documents (Article 28(5)). Where the court takes evidence, the parties and arbitrators may participate with the permission of the presiding judge (Article 28(3)).

Only the tribunal may request judicial assistance; neither the parties nor their counsel may apply directly to the court. While the tribunal may issue procedural orders to the parties, coercive measures against witnesses or non-parties require court assistance.

The KAA does not expressly impose a duty of confidentiality in arbitral proceedings. In practice, however, arbitral proceedings in Korea are in principle conducted on a confidential basis.

Separately, parties may enter into confidentiality agreements or adopt arbitration rules containing confidentiality provisions. For example, Articles 59.1 and 59.3 of the 2026 KCAB Rules provide that, unless otherwise agreed, arbitration proceedings and their records are confidential and closed to the public, and that information or documents related to the arbitration may not be disclosed unless otherwise agreed by the parties or required by law.

Information obtained in arbitral proceedings may nevertheless be disclosed where required by law, including where necessary for subsequent court proceedings relating to the recognition, enforcement or setting aside of an arbitral award. The scope of any such disclosure may also be subject to the parties’ agreement or applicable arbitration rules.

Under Article 32 of the KAA, an arbitral award must be in writing and signed by all arbitrators. For a tribunal consisting of three or more arbitrators, however, the remaining arbitrators may sign if those unable to do so do not constitute a majority and the reason is stated. The award must state the reasons on which it is based, unless the parties have agreed otherwise or the award records a settlement, and specify its date and the seat of arbitration.

Under Article 32(4) of the KAA, an authentic copy of the award must be delivered to each party in accordance with the requirements for written communications set out in Article 4(1)–(3), generally by personal delivery or delivery to the party’s domicile, place of business or mailing address. Absent party agreement, delivery by email alone is insufficient. The KAA does not prescribe a time limit for delivering an award. Any deadline is governed by the parties’ agreement, applicable arbitration rules or procedural orders.

The requirement to deliver an authentic copy of the award is generally regarded as mandatory in nature, although the parties may agree on the method of delivery. This requirement is significant because the three-month period for bringing an action to set aside the award begins upon receipt of the authentic copy.

The KAA does not expressly limit the types of remedies that may be granted by a tribunal. While monetary relief is most common, declaratory relief is increasingly sought.

The availability of a particular remedy nevertheless depends on the applicable substantive law. Korean law has traditionally limited damages to compensation for actual loss and has not recognised punitive damages except where expressly provided by statute. Since 2011, however, various statutes have introduced limited forms of punitive damages, generally capped at three or five times the actual loss, in areas including personal information, fair trade and intellectual property.

Accordingly, punitive damages are not categorically unavailable in arbitration; their availability turns principally on the applicable substantive law, while their recognition and enforcement in Korea may also be subject to public policy. In Supreme Court Judgment No 2018Da231550 dated 11 March 2022, which concerned the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, the Supreme Court held that damages exceeding actual loss do not necessarily violate Korean public policy, taking into account, among other things, whether Korean law provides for such damages in the relevant regulatory area. Although the decision did not concern an arbitral award, its reasoning may provide guidance on the recognition and enforcement of awards granting similar relief.

The KAA does not prescribe specific criteria for allocating arbitration costs. Instead, Article 34-2 provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the tribunal may apportion those costs after considering all relevant circumstances.

The 2026 KCAB Rules contain more detailed provisions on advances on costs, the allocation of arbitration costs, and the parties’ legal and other expenses (Articles 54–56). Reflecting prevailing international arbitration practice, Article 55.2 provides that the unsuccessful party should, in principle, bear the arbitration costs, while preserving the tribunal’s discretion to apportion those costs as it considers appropriate in light of the circumstances, including the parties’ conduct during the proceedings. Article 56 separately empowers the tribunal to allocate all or part of the parties’ legal costs and necessary expenses.

As to interest, Article 34-3 of the KAA empowers the tribunal to award delay interest at such rate as it considers appropriate in light of the circumstances.

Where Korean law governs the merits of the dispute, a recurring issue is whether the statutory delay interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings applies to arbitral awards. The Act provides for interest at 12% per annum from the day following service of the complaint (or an equivalent initiating document) until payment in respect of monetary claims pursued through court proceedings.

KCAB tribunals have reached differing conclusions on this issue. Some have applied the statutory rate mutatis mutandis, reasoning that the legislative objective of promoting the expeditious resolution of disputes applies equally to arbitration. Others have declined to do so on the basis that arbitration is intended to be more efficient than court litigation and therefore does not require the additional incentive provided by the statutory rate. Although the Korean Supreme Court has not directly resolved the issue, it has held that an arbitral award granting delay interest at the statutory rate does not, by itself, violate Korean public policy so as to justify refusing recognition or enforcement of the award (see Supreme Court Judgment No 99Da13577, 13584 dated 10 April 2001).

Under Article 35 of the KAA, an arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding judgment of a Korean court. An arbitral award is not subject to appeal before the Korean courts on questions of fact or law.

The only recourse against an arbitral award before the Korean courts is an action to set aside the award on the limited grounds set out in Article 36 of the KAA. Based on Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, these grounds largely mirror those for refusing recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention:

• A party to the arbitration agreement was subject to some incapacity under the applicable law, or the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law designated by the parties or, failing any such designation, under the laws of Korea.
• The party seeking to set aside the award was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case.
• The arbitral award deals with a dispute not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration.
• The composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless that agreement conflicted with a mandatory provision of the KAA, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the KAA.
• The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of Korea.
• The recognition or enforcement of the award would violate the good morals and other forms of social order of Korea.

An action to set aside an award must be brought within three months from the date on which the party seeking to set aside the award received an authentic copy of the award or, where applicable, an authentic copy of a correction, interpretation or additional award under Article 34. Such an action may not be brought after a Korean court’s decision recognising or enforcing the award has become final and binding.

Consistent with Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 36 of the KAA sets out an exhaustive list of the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award. Accordingly, the parties may not, by agreement, add to or expand those statutory grounds, and any such agreement would have no effect. There is no reported Korean court decision addressing whether the parties may exclude any of those grounds.

Korean courts do not review the merits of an arbitral award de novo. Judicial review is limited to determining whether any of the grounds for setting aside under Article 36 of the KAA have been established.

Korea acceded to the New York Convention on 8 February 1973, subject to reciprocity and commercial reservations. The Convention entered into force in Korea on 9 May 1973.

Article 39(1) of the KAA provides that the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards falling within the scope of the New York Convention are governed by the Convention. The KAA does not reproduce its substantive provisions because, under Article 6(1) of the Korean Constitution, treaties duly concluded and promulgated have the same effect as domestic legislation.

Article 37 of the KAA sets out the general framework for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Article 38 governs awards rendered in Korea, while Article 39 governs foreign awards and provides that awards falling within the scope of the New York Convention are recognised and enforced in accordance with the Convention. In practice, the recognition and enforcement of domestic and foreign arbitral awards generally follow similar procedures and standards.

The KAA does not prescribe a specific limitation period for seeking recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award. This contrasts with the three-month time limit for setting aside an award under Article 36(3).

The commencement or pendency of setting-aside proceedings does not, in itself, constitute a ground for refusing recognition or enforcement. Accordingly, the court may proceed with enforcement proceedings independently of the setting-aside action and, if the requirements are satisfied, grant recognition and enforcement notwithstanding the pending challenge. In practice, however, Korean courts tend to adjourn their decision pending the outcome of the setting-aside proceedings.

For a foreign arbitral award that has already been set aside at the seat of arbitration, there is no reported Korean case in which such an award was exceptionally recognised or enforced in Korea. The Korean Supreme Court has, however, recognised that a party that succeeds in annulment or suspension proceedings at the seat may rely on that decision as a ground for refusing recognition or enforcement under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention.

Meanwhile, no reported Korean court decision appears to have addressed sovereign immunity specifically at the enforcement stage of an arbitral award, and the KAA is silent on the issue.

Korean courts generally recognise and enforce arbitral awards unless one of the statutory grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement under the KAA or the New York Convention applies.

For arbitral awards seated in Korea, Article 38 of the KAA provides that recognition or enforcement may be refused where the award is contrary to the good morals or other forms of public policy of Korea. This ground corresponds to the public policy ground for setting aside an arbitral award under Article 36 of the KAA.

For arbitral awards seated outside of Korea and falling within the scope of the New York Convention, enforcement may be refused on public policy grounds pursuant to Article V(2)(b) of the Convention. The Korean court’s view of public policy grounds under the New York Convention is that it must be interpreted rather narrowly, in consideration of not only domestic circumstances but also the stability of the international commercial order. Issues of public policy grounds may arise in matters related to the award of punitive damages, statute of limitations longer than prescribed under Korean law, etc.

Neither the KAA nor Korean statutory or case law addresses class arbitration or group arbitration.

Korean law does not prescribe any specific ethical rules or professional standards applicable to counsel or arbitrators conducting arbitral proceedings.

Meanwhile, the KCAB Code of Ethics for Arbitrators applies to arbitrators appointed in KCAB-administered arbitrations. The Code sets out standards relating to, among other things, impartiality and independence, disclosure, communications with the parties, diligence, fairness, and confidentiality.

There is currently no legislation or other regulatory framework governing third-party funding in arbitration in Korea.

The 2026 KCAB Rules, however, contain disclosure requirements relating to third-party funding. Under Article 10.5, a party must promptly disclose the existence and identity of any third-party funder to the Secretariat, the tribunal, and the other parties, and must also notify them of any subsequent changes to the funding arrangement or the identity of the funder. In addition, the tribunal may, either at the request of a party or on its own initiative after consulting the parties, order the disclosure of further information regarding the funding arrangement or the third-party funder.

The KAA does not contain any provisions governing the consolidation of arbitral proceedings or the joinder of additional parties.

Accordingly, the parties’ agreement on consolidation or other forms of co-ordinated proceedings will generally be respected. Likewise, where the parties have agreed to arbitrate under institutional rules, the availability of joinder, consolidation, or concurrent proceedings will depend on whether the applicable institutional rules provide for such procedures and whether the relevant requirements are satisfied. For example, the 2026 KCAB Rules address these issues in provisions on the joinder of additional parties (Article 21), single arbitration under multiple contracts (Article 22), consolidation of arbitrations (Article 23), and concurrent proceedings (Article 24).

Article 35 of the KAA provides that an arbitral award has the same effect as a final and binding court judgment “between the parties”. Otherwise, the KAA does not contain any specific provisions addressing the effect of an arbitration agreement or an arbitral award on persons who are not parties to the arbitration agreement.

Under the prevailing view, however, the res judicata effect of an arbitral award may extend to persons who are treated as equivalent to the parties under the Korean Civil Procedure Act, such as successors in interest after the conclusion of oral arguments.

Korean courts have no special power to bind foreign third parties. Whether a foreign third party is bound by an arbitration agreement or affected by an award must be determined under the generally applicable rules governing the scope and effect of the arbitration agreement or award.