The Heilongjiang Higher People’s Court:

Your Court’s Request for Instructions regarding case [2005] Hei Gao Shang Wai Ta Zi No. 1 in which TS Haimalu Co., Ltd. (“Haimalu”) applied for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award made by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (“KCAB”) has been received by this court. Upon review of the case, this court replies as follows:

The KCAB rendered an arbitral award (No. 04113-0004) for the dispute concerning the development contract and chain agreement between Haimalu and Daqing PoPeyes Food Co., Ltd. (“PoPeyes”) on 22 October 2004. After Haimalu applied to the Harbin Intermediate People’s Court for recognition and enforcement of said arbitral award, PoPeyes applied to the court for the refusal of recognition and enforcement of the award on the ground that the arbitral tribunal failed to serve notice of the hearing and the arbitral award according to articles 4 and 8 of the Treaty between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea on the Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Affairs (“Treaty on Judicial Assistance”). Both parties clearly agreed that the arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration Rules of the KCAB (“KCAB rules”) in the development agreement and the chain agreement, and the arbitral tribunal in this case had already served notice of the arbitration hearing and the arbitral award to PoPeyes via mail pursuant to the KCAB rules, and there was also evidence that proved that PoPeyes had received the said notice and arbitral award.

Although the arbitral tribunal did not attach Chinese translations when serving notice of the hearing and the arbitral award, delivery of the above documents by mail without Chinese translations does not violate the Arbitration Law of Korea and the KCAB rules. The provisions requiring “contact channels for judicial assistance” and “language” as prescribed by the Treaty on Judicial Assistance shall only be applied to the judicial assistance between the judicial organs of two countries and not the service by arbitral institutions or tribunals in arbitral proceedings. Since PoPeyes has failed to present any evidence to prove that the arbitral award in this case was under any circumstance prescribed in Article V(1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) to which China has acceded, the arbitral award in this case shall be recognized and enforced.