중재법 제18조에서는 당사자가 중재판정부의 ‘임시적 처분’(interim remedies)을 허용하지 않기로 하는 합의를 하지 아니한 이상 중재판정부에게 임시적 처분을 할 수 있는 권한을 인정하고 있다. 그런데 중재법 제10조에서는 중재합의가 있는 경우에도 법원의 보전처분을 허용하고 있다. 따라서 중재절차에서의 임시적 처분에 관하여 중재판정부의 권한과 법원의 권한이 병존한다. 하지만 중재법은 중재판정부의 임시적 처분의 권한과 법원의 보전처분의 권한 사이의 우열에 대하여 아무런 규정을 두지 아니하여 양자가 충돌할 경우에 발생될 수 있는 문제에 대한 해법이 제시되지 않고 있다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위하여 본 글에서는 중재판정부 또는 법원이 임시적 처분에 대하여 전속관할을 갖는 경우를 제시하고, 양자 모두의 전속관할에 속하지 아니하는 경우에는 중재판정부에게 우선적으로 관할이 있고, 중재판정부가 임시적 처분을 할 수 없거나 적정한 시간 내에 할 수 없는 경우에만 법원의 관할이 있다는 결론을 도출하였다.
Article 18 of the Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal has authority to grant interim measures unless otherwise agreed by the parties. On the other hand, Article 10 of the Arbitration Act gives a court power to grant interim measures notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration agreement. As a result, the arbitral tribunal and the court can both have jurisdiction over the interim measures in arbitration proceedings. However, the Arbitration Act does not contain provisions regarding priority when there are conflicts between the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the jurisdiction of the court. To solve this problem, this article suggests when the arbitral tribunal should have exclusive jurisdiction over the interim measures and when the court should have it. In the case of parallel jurisdiction, this article concludes that the arbitral tribunal should have priority of jurisdiction and that the court should have jurisdiction only when the arbitral tribunal is either unable to grant interim measures or is unable to grant them quickly enough.
Article 18 of the Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal has authority to grant interim measures unless otherwise agreed by the parties. On the other hand, Article 10 of the Arbitration Act gives a court power to grant interim measures notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration agreement. As a result, the arbitral tribunal and the court can both have jurisdiction over the interim measures in arbitration proceedings. However, the Arbitration Act does not contain provisions regarding priority when there are conflicts between the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the jurisdiction of the court. To solve this problem, this article suggests when the arbitral tribunal should have exclusive jurisdiction over the interim measures and when the court should have it. In the case of parallel jurisdiction, this article concludes that the arbitral tribunal should have priority of jurisdiction and that the court should have jurisdiction only when the arbitral tribunal is either unable to grant interim measures or is unable to grant them quickly enough.
