tutorial video tutorial video Discover the CiteMap in 3 minutes

Lawyers, other representatives, expert(s), tribunal’s secretary

Award

Award

1.
The Defendant (Requestor in Objective Request; hereinafter referred to as the ’Defendant') shall recompense USD 151,154.75, subject to the annual interest rate equivalent to 6 % applied for a period commencing TWENTY fifth DATE OF APRIL twothoUsaND AND TEN and ending the date of recompense to the Requestor (Defendant in Objective Request; hereinafter refer red to as the ’Requestor).
2.
The remainder of arbitral request made by the Requestor is to be dismissed hereunder.
3.
The matter of reapplication. among other objective requests made by the Defendant in association with the claim provided for in the Attachment hereto is co be dismissed here there
4.
The remainder of objective request made by the Defendant is to be dismissed hereunder.
5.
The Requestor shall assume ONE-THIRD of the arbitral expenses for both main request and objective request, with the Defendant assuming the remainder.

Purpose of Main Request

1.
The Defendant shall recompense USD 268,342.75, subject to the annual interest rate equivalent to 20% applied for a period commencing TWENTY FIFTH DATE OF APRIL TWOTHOUSAND AND TEN and ending the date of recompense, to the Requestor.
2.
The Defendant shall assume the arbitral expenses in their entirety.

Purpose of Objective Request

1.
The Requestor shall recompense KRW 200,000,000, subject to the annual interest rate equivalent to 20% applied for a period commencing she date of a copy of this objective re-quest and ending the date of recompense, so the Defendant.
2.
The Requestor shall assume the arbitral expenses for the objective request in their entirety.

Arbitration Outline

1.
Both the Requestor and the Defendant serve as the parties to the arbitration in question.
2.
The written contract being the ground for the arbitration in question is the Sales Contract (Contract No:KKEX1209; hereinafter referred to as the 'Contract in Question').
3.
The Republic of Korean Act shall govern the arbitration in question.
4.
According to the General Terms and Conditions, of the Contract in Question, the arbitration in question shall be referred to the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board as follows:

"Arbitration; All disputes, controversies or differences which may arise between the parties, out of or in relation to or in connection with this Contract or for the breach thereof, shall be finally settled by arbitration in Seoul, Korea in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The mead rendered by the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon both parties concerned"

5.
On Apr. 20 41, the Requestor rendered the Written Application for Arbitration to the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board.
6.
On Apr. 27 ’11, the Requester applied amendment of the party, (from Komkang BNF Co. Ltd. to Debtor Komkang BNF Co. Ltd.)
7.
On Jun. 17 '11, the arbitration, board for the arbitration in question was established.
8.
On Jul. 21 ‘11, the arbitration board held the First Instance.
9.
On May. 16 '12, the arbitration board concluded the Instance.

Ground of Award

1. Recognition of the Arbitration in Question by the Requestor.

(a) Having supplied Aloe Vera Drink; etc. to the Defendant since Jun. '09, the Requestor concluded the contract in question on Dec. 9 '09 providing for therein the supply of a total of 47,148 Aloe Vine 1.51. boxes and 112,108 Aloe Vine 500ml boxes in exchange for the payment to be settled by the Defendant. Saving as the framework contract made by and between the parties, the contract in question sets forth the Defendant's issuance of the Purchase Order stating the demanded quantity for the Requestor to cause the Proforma Invoice issued according thereto, followed by setting the parties' hands (mainly via facsimile) on the Proforma Invoice in conclusion and implementation of the contract. According to the contract in question, the Requestor is entitled to request for settlement of the payment no earlier than EIGHTY NINETH date from the date of B/L of the concerned shipment..

(b) According to the order placed by the Defendant, the Requestor, on Jan. 9 '10, caused supplies worth USD 134,748.25 shipped to the vessel of the shipping company designated by the Defendant, followed by another supplies worth USD 75,114.50 on Jan. 13 '10 and the other supplies worth USD 58,480 on Jan. 15 '10 shipped to the same vessel to conclude shipment of Aloe Vera Drink products (hereinafter referred to as the 'Product in Question') worth USD 268,342.75 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amount in Question').

[Ground of Recognition: Undisputable Fact]

(c) According to the foregoing fact, the Defendant should have settled the payment worth USD 268,342.75 to the Requester on Apr. 25 '10, the evident EIGHTY NINETH calendar date from Jan. 15 '10, remaining unpaid as of this date,

(d) The Defendant, as provided for in the Objective Request hereunder, recognizes its liability to recompense the Requestor in relation to the contract in question and permits setting the amount liable off with the accounts receivable from the Requestor for the rest to be paid according to the Objective Request hereunder as demanded by it.

2. The Defendant's Protest and Claim in Objective Request and Judgment

A. As to the damaged package box of the product Alovita

1) Fact Admitted

[1].
The products worth USD 58,480, shipped on Jan. 15 '10 and delivered to the customer company Cosmo Amato according to the contact in question was wet and severely damaged when delivered.

[Ground of Recognition: Undisputable Fact]

2) The Defendant's Claim

[2].
Cause of Damage: The very cause of severe damage of the foregoing products, as claimed by the Defendant, is due to an impact affecting the Product m Question prior to the shipment or the Requestor's negligence in taking an appropriate measure upon shipment, such as air-showing. In relation to this, according to the Binek's statement (Documentary Evidence Eul-2 ~17) rendered on Aug. 25 '11 and the Certificate of Device Reception (Documentary Evidence Eul-2-20 ~ 22) issued on Apr. 6 ’10 by the shipping company, the shipping company is not responsible for the damage and the containers used were non-defective.
[3].
Scope of loss: Due to the foregoing damage, die Defendant suffered (i) the sales loss of USD 8,208 due to sales under the defective condition, (ii) the cost of collection of containers from New Jersey to New York (Documentary Evidence Eui 2-6 - 10) of USD 2, 660 and (iii) the cost of unloading (Documentary Evidence Eul-2-11 ~16) of USD 26,005, for the cumulative loss of USD 36,873.

3) The Requestor's Claim

[4].
Cause of Damage: According to the photographic evidence (Documentary Evidence Gap-6), the Product in Question remains undamaged when shipped. In this connection, when considering severe wet, the damage arguably is attributable to the containers falling under the sea or exposed to very humid environment or dew condensation, any of which may not be attributed to the Requestor.
[5].
Scope of loss: The cost of unloading claimed by the Defendant based upon the Documentary Evidences Eul-2-11 ~16 should have been assumed by the Defendant regardless of the Award, upon customs clearance and shall thus not be included in the scope of loss even when the Requestor is attributable thereto.
[6].
Further, in order for the Defendant to raise an objection upon the Product in Question duly delivered, (i) an objection shall be made no later than THIRTY days from the date of arrival of the Product in Question at the destination, (ii) that the delivery breakdown shall be rendered to the supplier, being the Requestor no later than FIFTEENTH date therefrom and (iii) the reputed inspector recognized by the seller shall set its hands on the inspection Report to be rendered as attached to the foregoing breakdown (hereinafter referred to as the Three Preconditions'), any of which has not been fulfilled by the Defendant.
[7].
Plus assuming that the Requestor is liable for any amount Article 251 of Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall apply to having the Requestor be escaped from that liability.

4) Judgment

[8].
Judgment upon Damage: The Product in Question was free from any damage when shipped.

[Ground Taken: Documentary Evidence Gap]

[9].
Notable is, however, that the Product in Question was damaged when delivered to the customer company Cosmo Amato, the destination of delivery.
[10].
In relation thereto, when deliberating the documentary evidences rendered by the parties, who shall be attributable to the damage is very uncertain.
[11].
In this connection, the agreed rate of risk assumption, set forth in the contract in question, shall apply. According to the foregoing contract, the delivery shall be made in FOB condition (Documentary Evidence Gap 1), in which case any risk borne by the process taken place after the delivery to the ship and before conclusion of the delivery shall be assumed by the Defendant.
[12].
This justifies that the Defendant shall be responsible for the risk borne by the process taken place after the delivery to the ship and before conclusion of the delivery provided that the attribution to the damage is uncertain and the Defendant’s claim and the eventual Objective Request are thus to be dismissed.

B. As to falsified Alovita Be content

1) Fact Admitted

[13].
In relation to the Product in Question, on Nov. 13 '09 the Requestor answered back to the Defendant to the effect that the Requestor will be responsible for any problem latent on the contracted product. On Nov. 20 '09, the Defendant requested the Requestor to have the Product in Question contain the significant amount of Vitamin B2, followed by the Requestor's acceptance thereof on Dee. 15 '09 and inclusion of 30% of Vitamin C and 80% of Vitamin B2 to the Product in Question.

[Ground of Recognition: (Undisputable Fact and Documentary Evidences Eul-3-2 ~ 4)

2) The Defendant's Claim

[14].
Claim of Defect: On Jul. 1 '10, the Defendant recognized that, in the laboratory, the Product in Question, Alovita, produced by the Requestor does not contain any of Vitamin B2 contents (Documentary Evidence Eul 3-5).
[15].
Scope of loss: With it giving up promoting the Alovita due to the lack of Vitamin B2 content in it, the Defendant claims that fee Requestor should recompense the 3-year estimated profit ta promotion of Alovita, as well as the cost of product design development worth USD 1,200, to the Defendant, not to mention the loss of credit end fame and mental harm suffered.

3) The Requestor's Claim

[16].
The Requestor claims that the Defendant shall not be entitled to claim as above, with the Three Preconditions not sufficiently fulfilled.
[17].
Plus, assuming that the Requestor is liable for any amount Article 251 of Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall apply to having the Requestor be escaped from that liability.
[18].
As for non-existence of Vitamin B2, the Requestor has kept input of Vitamin B2 in records, in the form of the Factory Log (Documentary Evidence Gap-13), not to mention the Korea Functional Food Research institute evidences existence of the Vitamin B2 (Documentary Evidence Gap-20).

4) Judgment

[19].
According to Documentary Evidence Gap-l, that the Three Preconditions set forth hereto can be admitted, despite its purpose demanding the fastest inspection of any defect demanding no budgetary preparation or specific inspection method after product acceptance. It should thus be construed that the Three Preconditions are meant for confirmation of defect-tree status and conclusion of the contract soonest possible. In this connection, application of the Three Preconditions to the defects demanding deliberation contrary to the foregoing shall be deemed against the parties' intent.
[20].
In relation therewith, the inspection for the vitamin content shall be construed as something demanding deliberation and backed by the budgetary preparation and specific inspection method. It is thus reasonable not to apply the Three Preconditions hereto.
[21].
In relation therewith, that the parties agreed upon inclusion of Vitamin B2 to the Product in Question is an undisputed fact and, according to the analytic result from the Korea Analysis Research Institute, as requested by the arbitration board, non-existence of Vitamin B2 in the Product in Question is evidenced.

[Grounds Taken: Documentary Evidence Eul-3-5 and Test Report issued by from the Korea Analysis Research Institute on Apr. 3 '12]

[22].
This signifies that such a non-existence shall constitute violation of the contract in question in which case the Requestor shall be responsible for recompensing the Defendant by the amount agreed.
[23].
In relation therewith, that the parties hereto agreed upon inclusion of Vitamin B2 in the Product in Question is deemed significant as the Product in Question is entitled "Vita" according thereto.
[24].
Such a defect shall be construed as the potential defamation and loss of credit or the potential risk Dosed to the Defendant who was supposed to receive the product and commence sales thereof without further processing. Recognizing the damages suffered by the Defendant, it should be concluded that the Requestor shall be responsible for recompensing the Defendant by the losses suffered by the Defendant on a «natter of defamation, reasonably wroth USD 50,000 when considering the transaction history, the term of transaction and the severity of defect. It is thus concluded that the Defendant’s claim shall be accepted in this connection, within the scope duly admitted hereby.
[25].
As for the Defendant's claim for 3 - year estimated profit from promotion of Alovita, as well as the cost of product design development it should be concluded that the documentary evidences rendered by the Defendant are way insufficient to back such amount of recompense and the concerned claim by the Defendant is dismissed.

C. As to the defect that change of color and taste of Alovine Kiwi gave rise

1) The Defendant's Claim

[26].
Claim or Defect: On Feb. '10 and in early March ’10, the Defendant remained oblivious of change of color of Alovine Kiwi into transparency until the customer complaint is raised (Documentary Evidences Eul 4-9 ~ 11), followed by the immediate notification thereof to HAN Pycong Sik, the president of the Requestor who visited New Work on Feb. '10 and sent an official e-mail raising on objection in relation therewith on Apr. 6 '10 (Documentary Evidences Eul 4-12 ~ 13).
[27].
Scope of Loss: Due solely to the foregoing damage, the Defendant gave up sales of the significant amount of the Product in Question, not to mention the complimentary provision of the greater amount of the same (Documentary Evidences Eul 4-16 ~ 57). In this connection, for Defendant claims that it suffered the loss of USD 30,738 comprising USD 21,043 from the amount unsold and USD 9,696 for the complimentary provision.

2) The Requestor's Claim

[28].
The Requestor claims that Article 251 of Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall apply to any of claims hereunder for dismissal thereof.
[29].
As for change of color of the Product in Question the parties have not agreed upon recompense due thereto, in which case the Defendant shall not be entitled to claim for recompense [or, change of color is something naturally happens as the parties agreed upon applying the pertinent EDA Standard and no use of artificial pigments save for Red Grape (Documentary Evidences Eul 4-4 ~ 6)]. As for loss of taste and quality, for Requestor does not admit.

3) Judgment

[30].
That the color and flavor of the Product in Question delivered by the Requestor and that the 'Defendant received customer complaint may not be accepted. Pius, that the Defendant's loss from inability to collect the amount for the Product in Question due to change of color and taste of Alovine Kiwi shall not be accepted. [Grounds Taken: Documentary Evidences Eul-4-9 ~13]
[31].
la addition, caste, flavor and color is an inevitable portion of the Product in Question, in which case encumbrance in sales dee to change thereof by the dole discretion of the Requestor shall constitute the supply of the inappropriate product not otherwise agreed and eventually the default. Meanwhile, as for the Requestor’s claim that change of color is something natural due to lack of artificial pigments, such a lack of artificial pigments shall neither constitute agreement upon color change for transparency by the parties, law acceptance by the Defendant thereof.

[Ground Taken Documentary Evidences Eul-4 ~6]

[32].
As for the claim by the Requestor that the Defendant should have raised an objection about taste, flavor and color no later than THIRTY days from the date of reception, that the Requestor initially notified the relevant customer complaint to the president HAN Pycong Sik on Feb. '10 during his visit to New York shall not justify such a claim.
[33].
As for she scope of loss, the entirely of USD 30,738, comprising the amount unsold and the complimentary provision, is to be admitted in which case the Defendant’s claim thereupon shall be accented within the scope of the admission above.

[Grounds Taken: Documentary Evidences Eul-4-16 ~ 57]

[34].
Further, as for the Requestor claiming that Article 251 of Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall apply to any of claims hereunder for dismissal thereof, that the Corporate Rehabilitation was declared for the Requestor on Feb. 9 '10 shall not justify such a claim as the Requestor's liabilities to damage compensation, etc. under the contract in question have been raised over a period commencing Feb. '10 and ending Mar '10 after the Corporate Rehabilitation.

D. As for the defective package giving rise to UPC Barcode Error

1) The Defendant’s Claim

[35].
Claim of Defect: Among other products in the Product in Question, there was a mis-packaging of Alovine Mango and Alovine Pineapple 500ml to mix up UPC Barcodes (Documentary Evidences Eul 9-1 ~2).
[36].
Scope of Loss: The foregoing UPC Barcode Error gave rise to insufficiency in the inventory and the eventual hiring of a person-in-charge to handle that issue in the city of New York, being part of costs and expenses assumed by the Defendant due thereto. In this connection the Requestor shall recompense the Defendant by the loss suffered, to be specific inclusive of tire cost of repair for Alovine Mango, the cost of repair for Alovine Pineapple, the cost of inspection for Alovine Pineapple and the cost of inspection for the entire Alovine series (Grape, Kiwi, Guava, Peach, Strawberry), worth USD 68,000.

2) The Requester's Claim

[37].
The Requestor's claims that the Three Preconditions shall be fulfilled for this particular case as well.
[38].
Also claimed by the Requestor is that the barcode error is just a transient one, in which case it shall not be construed as the product defect, to be specific being the defect in the container of the beverage product in an attempt to back the amount of the Defendant claiming.

3) Judgment

[39].
The Three Preconditions shall be construed as the provisions for claims capable of inspection no later than THIRTY days from the date of delivery made, in which case the UPC Barcode error, as part of errors discovered in the retailer level (and not readily discoverable visually) shall not apply thereto.
[40].
That the Product in Question provided by the Requestor was subject to UPC Barcode error and the Defendant dispatch of an employee to open up all the relevant boxes to check for the contents and repair thereof shall duly be recognized Further. the Requestor's inactivity in rendering support thereto gave rise to extensive cost of repair, in which case the Requestor shall recompense the Defendant by the amount of loss suffered due to UPC Barcode error.
[41].
As for the amount to be recompensed, the Defendant's execution of the amount worth USD 36,450 for the cost of inspection of Alovine Mango, the cost of repair for Alovine Mango, the cost of inspection of Alovine Pineapple and the cost of repair for Alovine Pineapple shall duly be recognized.

(Grounds Taken: Documentary Evidences Eul-9-l~4 and Eul 12)

[42].
It shall be construed that the recompense as to the concerned UPC barcode error, involving both Alovine Mango and Alovine Pineapple, is failing under the scope of loss to be recompensed by the Requestor.
[43].
As for the Defendant's request for the projected cost of inspection worth USD 31,550 for inspection for the entire Alovine series (Grape, Kiwi, Guava, Peach, Strawberry), that the necessity of such an inspection is in no ways backed by the concerned UPC Barcode error, in which case the Defendant's claim hereupon shall be accepted within the scope of the admission above.

E. As for non-conformity between the labeling and the contents

1) The Defendant's Claim

[44].
As for the Purchase Order KAV2009.78, the Defendant has caused the defective product returned to the Requestor, on condition of the Requestor assuming all the costs and expenses arisen therefrom. Notwithstanding the above, the Requestor has never recompensed USD 3,852, equivalent to the cost of transportation (TGD00374 6) and the Defendant claims that the Requestor be liable therefor (Documentary Evidence Eul 5-4).
[45].
Further, the Defendant claims that the Requestor be liable or recompensing the projected profit that should have been earned by it under the foregoing Purchase Order KAV2009-78.

2) The Requestor's Claim

[46].
The Requestor has raised a comprehensive objection on Nov, 23 '11 against the Objective Request by the Defendant
[47].
In addition, the Requestor claims that Article 251 of Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall apply to any of claims hereunder for dismissal thereof.

3) Judgment upon the Defendant's Claim

[48].
As to the Objective Request in relation hereto, for an objective request to be raised against the duly raised application, (i) the parties shall remain the same and (ii) the objection shall be raised against the dispute later, upon the contract containing the provision mandating the arbitration.
[49].
In relation therewith, the Requestor has raised a comprehensive objection against the Objective Request by the Defendant. That the arbitration in question is about the written contract (# KKEX1209) made and entered into by and between the parties on Dec. 9 '09 in no ways justify the arbitration board’s authority to handle the contract KAV2009-78 concluded prior to the foregoing date, in which case the relevant claim shall be dismissed.
[50].
Further, as for the Defendant raising a counter-argument of set-off in relation hereto, one may raise a counter-argument of set-off only when such a counter-argument shall be based, upon or closely related to, to the extent of the similarity recognized, the same contract with that of the original arbitration requested.
[51].
Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant's pertinent claim is about a discrete contract concluded wav before the date of conclusion of the contract in question, in no ways the foregoing basis or similarity may be evidenced. In this connection, the arbitration board is to dismiss the Defendant's pertinent claim.
[52].
As for the claims relevant hereto, as claimed by the Requestor. Article 251 of Debtor: Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall apply to any of claims hereunder for dismissal thereof.

F. As to business interference and claim for cost of marketing

1) The Defendant's Claim

[53].
Upon lapse of the contractual relation since Mar. ’10, the Defendant has seek for a new business having Bosung Green Tea Farms Incorporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Bosung") and DNS (Trade Agency of Bosung) as parties. The Defendant claims, however, that the Requestor cat in and interfered the business relevant thereto.
[54].
In this connection, the Defendant claims that the loss suffered by the Defendant due to production interference and the amount invested for brand marketing shall duly be recompensed by the Requestor (Documentary Evidences Eul 6-1 - 46).

2) The Requestor’s Claim

[55].
The Requestor has raised a comprehensive objection against the Objective Request by the Defendant.

3) Judgment upon the Defendant's Claim

[56].
As for the judgment upon the Defendant’s claim, that the interference in supply of container by the Requestor was taken place after lapse of the contract in question, in which case such an interference shall constitute a dispute not based upon the contract in question. In this connection the arbitration board's authority, to the same extent set forth in the Sub-paragraph E., does not stretch thereto, in which case the Defendant's pertinent claim shall be dismissed.
[57].
Further, as for the Defendant raising a counter argument of set-off in relation hereto based upon the fact that the Requestor interfered its own business prosecuted after lapse of the contract in question, one may not raise a counter-argument of set-off for damage compensation discretely from the contract in question. With the similarity to the contract in question to the extent equating such an interruption with any conflict raised in relation to the contract in question, the arbitration board hereby distress the Defendant's pertinent claim, to the same extent set forth in the Sub- paragraph E.

G. As for the copyright infringement by the Requestor and violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

1) The Defendant’s Claim

[58].
The Defendant claims that it is the sole and only bearer of the copyright of Alovine across the world and thus entitled to be protected in the U.S. soil as to the sales of the relevant product (Documentary Evidence Eul 7-1 and it was an infringement of copyright by the Defendant (according to Documentary Evidences Eul 8-1 and 8-2) who shall be responsible for recompensing the Defendant by the amount of loss suffered relevant hereto.

2) The Requester's Claim

[59].
The Requestor has raised a comprehensive objection against the Objective Request by the Defendant

3) Judgment

[60].
As for the judgment upon the Defendant's Objective Request, that the copyright infringement case and violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act by the Requestor shall not be deemed failing under the scope of agreement for the arbitration in question in which case the arbitration board's authority, to the same extent set forth in the Sub-paragraph E., does not stretch thereto, in which case the Defendant's pertinent claim shall be dismissed.
[61].
Further, as for the Defendant raising a counter-argument of set-off in relation hereto, one may not raise a counter-argument of set-off for any matter not being the subject of arbitration or closely related to any conflict raised in relation to the contract in question to the equating itself thereto. In this connection, the arbitration board hereby distress the Defendant's pertinent claim, to the same extern set forth in the Sub-paragraph E.

H. As for loss from undelivered products

1) The Defendant's Claim

[62].
With the Defendant placing an order, on Feb. 25 10, for a total of five Alovine Containers to the Requestor for the destination of Tampa, Florida (see Documentary Evidences Eul 10-1 ~ 5, P/O J2010-27 ~32), the Defendant suggested that the payment be settled after the delivery and guaranteeing the good standing of the products delivered (on Apr. 7 ‘10 via E-mail; Documentary Evidence Eul 10-7. With the Requestor dismissing such a suggestion, the Defendant has executed the transportation expenses that should not have been executed due to such a dismissal without a legitimate cause and claims that the Requestor shall recompense the Defendant by the amount corresponding thereto.

2) Judgment

[63].
Based solely upon the Defendant's claim that the Requestor dismissed the request for purchase (subscription) made by the Defendant apparently gave rise to non-conclusion of a contract, in which case the Defendant claim shall unconditionally be dismissed. In this connection, the arbitration board is to dismiss such a claim and the relevant counter-argument of set-off.

I. Other claims relevant to the damaged package

1) The Defendant's Claim

[64].
That, prior to the Product in Question, the containers (from PO# KAV2009-66 to KAV 2009-167) delivered by the Requestor always contained damaged cases, giving rise to the Defendant's spending of the cost of repair that, according to the Defendant's claim, should be recompensed by the Requester.

2) The Requestor's Claim

[65].
The Requestor has raised a comprehensive objection against the Objective Request by the Defendant.
[66].
In addition, the Requestor claims that Article 251 of Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall apply to any of claims hereunder for dismissal thereof.

3) Judgment

[67].
As for the judgment upon the Defendant's Objective Request, that the relevant cases taken place prior to conclusion of the contract in question shall not be deemed falling under the scope of agreement for the arbitration in question, in which case the arbitration board’s authority, to the same extent set forth in the Sub-paragraph E., does not stretch thereto, in which case the Defendant’s pertinent claim shall be dismissed.
[68].
Further, as for the Defendant raising a counter-argument of set-off in relation hereto, one may not raise a counter-argument of set-off for any matter not being the subject of arbitration as concluded prior to the conclusion of the contract in question or closely related to any conflict raised in relation to the contract in question to the equating itself thereto. In this connection, the arbitration board hereby dismiss the Defendant's pertinent claim, to the same extent set forth in the Sub-paragraph E.

3. Conclusion.

[68].
Based wholly upon the above, the Defendant shall cause USD 151,154.75, the balance after the Defendant's accounts receivable from the Requestor deducted (USD 268,342.75 - USD 50,000 - USD 30,738 - USD 36,450), subject to after deducting the subject to the annual interest rate equivalent to 6% applied for a period commencing TWENTY FIFTH DATE OF APRIL TWOTHOUSAND AND TEN and ending the date of recompense, recompensed to the Requestor (Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings in relation to the payment of deferred payment. of interest) shall not apply hereto. In this connection, the request for arbitration rendered by the Requestor shall duly be received within the scope of the admission above, with the rest to be dismissed.
[69].
The Objective Request by the Defendant shall duly be received within the scope of the admission of the balance after the foregoing deduction, with the rest to be dismissed.
[70].
In accordance with Article 52 (2) of the arbitration Rules, the Requestor shall assume ONE-THIRD of the arbitral expenses for both main request and objective request, with the- Defendant assuming the remainder to conclude the Award as first above said on this date of:
Whole document
para.
Click on the text to select an element Click elsewhere to unselect an element
Select a key word :
1 /