Interim Measures - Chapter 8 - Arbitration Law of Korea: Practice and Procedure
About the firm:
Bae, Kim & Lee's International Arbitration and Litigation Group has earned worldwide respect for its forceful and uncompromising representation of clients. In a field where experience counts, BKL boasts Korea's first dedicated international arbitration practice group. Having been at the forefront of the field in Korea for the past 10 years, the team is now composed of 16 attorneys from several jurisdictions plus paralegals and staff, and includes a former Counsel of the ICC Secretariat and several members listed in leading publications including Who's Who Legal, Chambers, and Asia-Pacific Legal 500. This year, reflecting the team's progress and current international standing, BKL received the Arbitration Win of the Year award from Global Arbitration Review (GAR) and had the honor of being the first and only Korean firm ever listed in the "GAR 30," awarded to the 30 top arbitration practices worldwide.
General Editors:
Kap-You (Kevin) Kim is Head of the International Arbitration and Litigation Practice Group and Partner of Bae, Kim & Lee LLC. Mr. Kim has the distinct honor of being a Court Member of the ICC Court of Arbitration and the London Court of International Arbitration, listed ICSID arbitrator, Senior Advisor to the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, Vice Chair of the IBA Arbitration Committee and a Board Member of the American Arbitration Association.
John P. Bang is Partner (foreign legal adviser) and co-founder of Bae, Kim & Lee's International Arbitration and Litigation Practice Group. Mr. Bang has acted as counsel in over 75 commercial arbitral proceedings in Asia, Europe and the US under the rules of all major international arbitral institutions including, among others, the ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SIAC, JCAA, and KCAB (Korean Commercial Arbitration Board) and numerous litigation proceedings in various foreign jurisdictions. He was named in the Global Arbitration Review’s "45 under 45" for 2011, which lists the leading figures of the international arbitration bar under the age of 45
Contributing Authors:
Seungwoo (Sean) Cho
Matthew J. Christensen
Kyongwha Chung
Seung Il Hong
Woochul Hwang
Eun Ah Jeung
Byoung Pil Kim
Hong-Joong Kim
Junu Kim
Sue Hyun Lim
David W. MacArthur
James Morrison
JongKwon Ryoo
Yunsoo Shin
Sung Woo Yang
Seokchun Yun
Originally from Arbitration Law of Korea: Practice and Procedure
INTERIM MEASURES
8.1 OVERVIEW
Interim measures1 are those measures which operate to maintain the status quo on a temporary basis or to fix a legal relationship on a provisional basis in order to facilitate the enforcement of a judgment in respect of a dispute or to prevent any losses from arising until a conclusive judgment is rendered. For instance, they may serve to preserve evidence, secure assets or prohibit certain conduct (or the cessation of certain conduct).2
A claimant can apply for either or both of the following preservation measures:
• Provisional attachment, which seizes assets owned by a party, prohibiting the disposition of those assets.
• Provisional injunction, which prohibits a party from undertaking certain actions, including disposing of assets.
Both of these measures can be applied for at any time, including before the underlying claim is filed (either in court or arbitration) or while proceedings on the underlying claim are pending.
Provisional measures are used frequently in Korea.
Parties can request interim measures from either the tribunal or a court, as explained, respectively, in Sections 8.4 and 8.5 below. Parties should be aware, however, of differences in the scope of the powers of courts and tribunals in this regard. Such differences are compared in Sections 8.6 and 8.7. In practice, parties more commonly apply to the Korean courts rather than tribunals for interim measures.
The following two subsections address in more detail the two forms of provisional relief available: attachments and injunctions, respectively.
Chapter 8 Interim Measures
8.1 Overview
8.2 Provisional Attachment
8.3 Provisional Injunction / Disposition
8.4 Interim Measures through the Courts
8.5 Interim Measures through an Arbitral Tribunal
8.6 Comparative Advantages of Court-ordered Interim Measures
8.7 Comparative Advantages of Tribunal-ordered Interim Measures