I. INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES

1. This case concerns a dispute submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of
Investment Disputes (“ICSID” or the “Centre”) by Ansung Housing Co., Ltd. (“Ansung”
or “Claimant”), a privately-owned company incorporated under the laws of the Republic
of Korea, against the People’s Republic of China (“China” or “Respondent”). Claimant
and Respondent shall be referred to collectively as the “Parties.” Claimant and
Respondent shall be each referred to as a “Party.”
2. The dispute relates to Ansung’s investment in a golf course and condominium
development project in Sheyang-Xian, China. This dispute was submitted to ICSID on
the basis of the Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the
Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Promotion and Protection of
Investments that entered into force on December 1, 2007 (“China-Korea BIT” or
“Treaty”), and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States
and Nationals of Other States, which entered into force on October 14, 1966 (“ICSID
Convention”).
3. Before the First Session, China filed “Respondent’s Objection Pursuant to ICSID
Arbitration Rule 41(5)” (“Rule 41(5) Objection” or “41(5) Objection”), contending that
Ansung’s claim “is manifestly without legal merit.” Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Rules of
Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (“Arbitration Rules” or “ICSID Arbitration Rules”
or “Rules”) provides that the Tribunal “after giving the parties the opportunity to present
their observations on the objection, shall, at the first session or promptly thereafter notify
the parties of its decision on the objection.”
4. The Tribunal conducted the First Session and a hearing on the Rule 41(5) Objection on
December 14, 2016 (“Rule 41(5) Hearing” or “Hearing”). This Award embodies the
Tribunal’s decision upholding China’s Rule 41(5) Objection, which the Tribunal relayed
to the Parties in summary form at the end of the Hearing. Following the letter and spirit
of Rule 41(5), the Tribunal determined to provide an oral ruling to save the Parties
unnecessary time and resources post-Hearing.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY