## Facts

- Adviso N.V. (award creditor) and Korea Overseas Construction Corporation (KOCC) (award debtor) entered a construction-related contract with an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in Zurich, Switzerland.
- A dispute arose and was submitted to arbitration in Zurich pursuant to the arbitration clause.
- The arbitral tribunal issued an award granting damages to Adviso against KOCC.
- In addressing timeliness, the tribunal applied a Netherlands Antilles statute of limitation that provided a longer limitation period than Korean domestic law.
- Adviso sought recognition and enforcement of the Zurich award in South Korea.
- The Seoul Court of Appeals granted leave to enforce, concluding that (i) the longer foreign limitation period did not violate Korean public order, (ii) the tribunal properly retained jurisdiction, and (iii) Adviso’s assignments of rights did not violate Korean estoppel principles.
- KOCC appealed to the Supreme Court of South Korea, primarily invoking the New York Convention public-policy defense.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is barred under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention because the tribunal applied a foreign statute of limitation longer than the forum’s limitation period.
2. Whether alleged jurisdictional defects in the arbitral proceedings warranted refusal of enforcement under the New York Convention’s limited defenses.
3. Whether alleged estoppel or assignment-related objections, as treated by the tribunal, required denial of enforcement as contrary to Korean public order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the order granting recognition and enforcement of the Zurich arbitral award.
- The Court rejected KOCC’s contention that applying a longer foreign limitation period made enforcement contrary to Korean public policy under Article V(2)(b).
- The Court did not accept that the tribunal’s jurisdictional determinations or its handling of assignment/estoppel objections justified refusal of enforcement under the Convention’s enumerated grounds.
- The ruling reflected a pro-enforcement approach consistent with the Convention’s limited exceptions framework.

## Legal Principles

- Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention permits refusal of enforcement only when enforcement would violate the forum state’s public policy, construed narrowly.
- Differences between foreign and domestic limitation periods, standing alone, are treated as choice-of-law or merits matters and do not ordinarily amount to a public-policy violation.
- Enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention are not a vehicle for relitigating the merits; alleged legal or factual errors by the tribunal generally do not justify non-enforcement absent a specified Article V ground.
- Challenges to an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and party-conduct defenses (including estoppel and assignment-related arguments) must meet the Convention’s strict refusal criteria; ordinary disagreement with the tribunal’s evaluation is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of South Korea upheld enforcement of a Zurich award, holding that application of a longer foreign limitation period and related merits-based objections concerning jurisdiction and estoppel did not satisfy the New York Convention’s narrow grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement, including the public-policy exception.


Adviso N.V. v. Korea Overseas Constr. Corp., XXI Y.B. Com. Arb. 612 (S. Ct. S. Kor. 1995)