If International Settlements Reached Through Mediation Are Given Enforceability, How Far Does the Court Look Into Them?

The Materials Read and Their Stage

This article reads materials at the stage of the government's legislative advance notice. The notice is Ministry of Justice Public Notice No. 2026-178, the submission period shown on the notice screen is from June 4, 2026 to July 14, 2026, and the department in charge is shown as the International Legal Affairs Policy Division of the Ministry of Justice. On the reference-date screen, the number of legislative opinions was shown as 616. This article has not read the content of those opinions.

The draft statute file attached to the notice screen is in the form of a bill cover. The cover states that the submitter is a State Council member (Minister of Justice) and that the stage is prior to review by the Ministry of Government Legislation. The note in the same file states that the legislative advance notice is scheduled to run from May 27, 2026 to July 6, 2026, which differs from the period on the actual notice screen. When this article refers to the period, it follows the period on the notice screen.

When, on the reference date of October 16, 2026, a search was conducted in the National Assembly legislation status of the National Participation in Legislation Center using a partial title of the Act, "international commercial mediation," it was shown that there was no corresponding list. Accordingly, this article reads this draft enactment as a government advance-notice draft prior to its submission to the National Assembly, on the premise that the text may change as it passes through review by the Ministry of Government Legislation or a State Council meeting. The portions read are the reasons for enactment and the principal contents in the advance notice, Articles 1 through 8 of the attached draft statute, and Articles 1 and 2 of the Addendum. The statement of reasons for enactment and amendment by article and the text of the Convention have not been read.

Sources for this section: National Participatory Legislation Center, advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (Ministry of Justice Public Notice No. 2026-178) · Draft bill attached to the advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (draft), hwpx

How Current Law Treats Agreements Concluded Through Mediation

Civil Act Article 731 provides that a compromise takes effect where the parties, by making mutual concessions, agree to terminate a dispute existing between them. Article 732 provides that a settlement agreement has the effect that the right conceded by one party is extinguished and the other party acquires that right by the compromise. The two provisions prescribe the effect as a contract and do not separately lay down a basis for compulsory execution. The reasons for enactment in the advance notice likewise explain that, under current civil law, an agreement reached through mediation is nothing more than a simple contract, so that a separate trial procedure must be followed in order to enforce it by compulsion.

Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act Article 29 provides that conciliation has the same effect as a compromise in court. This refers to conciliation concluded in the court's civil conciliation procedure. The advance notice explains that the procedures and effects of mediation under the Convention and of conciliation under the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act differ, so that international commercial mediation needs to be defined separately.

Arbitration Act Article 35 provides that an arbitral award has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment of a court between the parties, with exceptions for cases in which recognition or enforcement is refused under Article 38. Article 37 provides that an arbitral award is recognized where no ground for refusal of recognition exists, that where a party makes an application the court may issue a ruling granting recognition, and that enforcement is permitted by a ruling of the court granting enforcement. The same Article provides for the submission of the original or a copy together with a Korean translation, the designation of a date for oral argument or a hearing date at which both parties may participate, the statement of reasons for the ruling, and an immediate appeal against a ruling. Article 37 (7) provides that such immediate appeal against a ruling has no effect of staying enforcement, and allows the appellate court to order a stay of enforcement upon security as a condition or without security. Paragraph (8) provides that no appeal lies against that stay ruling.

Civil Procedure Act Article 447 provides that an immediate appeal against a ruling has the effect of staying enforcement, and Article 444 sets the period for an immediate appeal against a ruling at one week from the date on which the decision is notified. Civil Execution Act Article 56 lists, as other enforcement titles, a decision against which only an appeal against a ruling lies, a final and conclusive payment order, a notarial deed containing a statement of consent to enforcement, a compromise in court, and other matters having the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment. Article 44 (2) of the same Act provides that grounds for an objection to the claim must have arisen after the close of oral argument, and Articles 58 (3) and 59 (3) provide that that restriction does not apply to payment orders and notarial deeds. This article uses these provisions only as comparison criteria for reading the draft enactment.

Sources for this section: National Law Information Center, current Civil Act (Act No. 21454, effective March 17, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Civil Conciliation Act (Act No. 16910, effective March 5, 2020) · National Law Information Center, current Arbitration Act (Act No. 21065, effective October 1, 2025) · National Law Information Center, current Civil Execution Act (Act No. 20733, effective February 1, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Civil Procedure Act (Act No. 21993, effective October 2, 2026) · National Participatory Legislation Center, advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (Ministry of Justice Public Notice No. 2026-178)

What the Draft Enactment Seeks to Provide

Article 1 of the draft enactment states its purpose as providing matters necessary to implement the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation. The advance notice explains that Korea signed this Convention in August 2019. Article 2 (1) provides that this Act applies where, for the purpose of resolving an international commercial dispute, a settlement agreement in writing reached through international commercial mediation, that is, a settlement agreement reached through mediation, is one in respect of which the parties have made an agreement to the effect that it may be recognized or enforced under the Convention or this Act. The advance notice explains this as a reservation permitted by the Convention.

Article 2 (2) excludes from application those concerning consumer contracts, employment contracts, or legal relationships relating to family or inheritance; those approved by a court or concluded in trial proceedings and enforceable like a judgment; and those enforceable like an arbitral award. The principal contents in the advance notice record only the exclusion of consumer contracts and employment contracts, but the attached provisions also record legal relationships relating to family or inheritance. Article 3 defines an international commercial dispute as, inter alia, a case where the parties' places of business are in different countries, and provides that a mediator in international commercial mediation has no authority to impose a particular resolution upon the parties.

Article 4 provides that a party seeking recognition may file an application seeking a ruling granting recognition, and that a party seeking to carry out compulsory execution must file an application seeking a ruling granting enforcement. The applicant must submit the original or a copy of the settlement agreement reached through mediation bearing the seal or signature of the parties and the mediator; where the mediator's signature is absent, the applicant must submit a separate document signed by the mediator, a certification of the mediation institution, or other material capable of proving that it was concluded through international commercial mediation. Foreign-language documents must be accompanied by a Korean translation; provided, that the court, after hearing the respondent's opinion, may dispense with the translation or substitute an English translation.

Article 5 provides eight grounds for refusal to be proved by the opposing party and two grounds recognized ex officio by the court. The former include lack of capacity, non-existence or invalidity under the governing law, extinction by performance of the obligation and other causes, indeterminacy of the content of the obligation, the fact that the mediator's serious breach of applicable standards affected the conclusion, and the fact that the mediator failed to disclose circumstances giving rise to doubts as to impartiality or independence. The latter are cases of disputes that cannot be resolved through international commercial mediation under the law of the Republic of Korea, and cases contrary to good morals or other public order.

Article 6 provides that the court designates and gives notice of a date for oral argument or a hearing date at which both parties may participate, determines the matter promptly, and dismisses the application where grounds under Article 5 exist. Article 6 (4) provides that, where necessary for enforcement, the court may, with the consent of both parties, modify the content of the agreement set out in the writing within a scope that does not alter its substance and issue a ruling granting enforcement. Reasons need not be stated in a ruling granting permission; however, where the court has determined the existence or non-existence of the grounds under Article 5, has granted permission only in part, or has granted permission after modification, it must state the gist of its determination. Article 6 (6) provides that an immediate appeal against a ruling may be taken from the ruling. Article 7 provides that where a related application or claim has been submitted to another court or an arbitral tribunal, the court may stay or continue the procedure and may order the provision of security, and Article 8 provides that the Court Organization Act, the Civil Execution Act, and the Civil Procedure Act apply mutatis mutandis insofar as not contrary to their nature.

The advance notice explains that no res judicata is recognized for a ruling granting enforcement, as for payment orders and notarial deeds, and that it may be contested even on grounds arising before the close of oral argument, and further explains that no res judicata is conferred on a ruling granting recognition either. This explanation, however, is the explanation in the advance notice, and Articles 1 through 8 of the attached provisions contain no sentence directly addressing res judicata or restrictions on objections to the claim.

Sources for this section: National Participatory Legislation Center, advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (Ministry of Justice Public Notice No. 2026-178) · Draft bill attached to the advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (draft), hwpx · National Law Information Center, current Arbitration Act (Act No. 21065, effective October 1, 2025) · National Law Information Center, current Civil Procedure Act (Act No. 21993, effective October 2, 2026)

Can Grounds for Refusal Be Discerned Through Written Materials and a Short Hearing?

Article 4 defines the documents submitted by the applicant as the settlement agreement reached through mediation and proof of the conclusion of the mediation. The grounds under Article 5, subparagraph 1 must be proved by the opposing party, and Article 6 (2) provides that the court must determine the matter promptly. Grounds such as lack of capacity or extinction of the obligation leave relatively greater room for contest through written materials. Article 5, subparagraph 1, items (g) and (h), however, ask whether the mediator seriously breached applicable standards, whether circumstances concerning impartiality or independence were not disclosed, and whether this affected the conclusion of the settlement agreement. These are facts that occurred within the mediation procedure and may be difficult to verify without the records of the mediator or the mediation institution.

The draft enactment does not separately provide how the confidentiality of the mediation procedure is to be handled, whether the mediator may be called as a witness, or whether the mediation institution may be required to submit records. Article 8 applies the Civil Procedure Act mutatis mutandis, but subject to the condition "insofar as not contrary to its nature." Because a provision requiring prompt determination and a provision requiring proof of facts internal to the procedure are placed together, on which side the weight is to be placed appears to be determined outside the provisions. This article does not substitute for that determination.

Article 6 (5) provides that reasons need not be stated in a ruling granting permission, yet requires the gist to be stated where the existence or non-existence of the grounds under Article 5 has been determined. Whether a case in which the opposing party asserted a ground but it was not accepted falls within this, and how such a case is distinguished from one in which there was no assertion, are not clear from the text. By what procedure and to what extent of evidentiary examination is the proof contesting facts within the mediation procedure to be prescribed?

Sources for this section: Draft bill attached to the advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (draft), hwpx · National Law Information Center, current Civil Procedure Act (Act No. 21993, effective October 2, 2026)

To Which Procedure Do the Disputes Remaining After an Enforcement Ruling Without Res Judicata Go?

The advance notice explains that no res judicata is recognized for a ruling granting enforcement and that it may be contested even on grounds arising before the close of oral argument, citing payment orders and notarial deeds as examples. Current Civil Execution Act expressly provides in Articles 58 (3) and 59 (3) that the timing restriction in Article 44 (2) does not apply to payment orders and notarial deeds. The provisions of the draft enactment contain no corresponding express provision, only the general mutatis mutandis application in Article 8.

Without an express provision, which grounds may be asserted before what point in time in an objection to the claim against a ruling granting enforcement is left to interpretation. Nor do the provisions make clear under which subparagraph of Article 56 of the Civil Execution Act a ruling granting enforcement constitutes an enforcement title. The advance notice explains that the enforcement title comes into being only upon a court ruling granting enforcement, but whether the ruling becomes an enforcement title as a decision reviewable only by an appeal against a ruling, or whether it can be enforced only once it has become final, is not stated in the text.

It is also explained that no res judicata is conferred on a ruling granting recognition. If so, where a party who has obtained a ruling granting recognition invokes that ruling in another lawsuit, whether the opposing party may again contest the same issue, and how this connects with the assertion of effect in other procedures provided in Article 4 (4), are likewise not provided by the provisions. If the explanation that no res judicata is laid down were transposed into the provisions, by which sentence would the timing of objections and the basis of the enforcement title be provided?

Sources for this section: National Participatory Legislation Center, advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (Ministry of Justice Public Notice No. 2026-178) · Draft bill attached to the advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (draft), hwpx · National Law Information Center, current Civil Execution Act (Act No. 20733, effective February 1, 2026)

Does an Immediate Appeal Against a Ruling Stop Enforcement?

Article 6 (6) of the draft enactment provides only that an immediate appeal against a ruling may be taken from a ruling on the application. Arbitration Act Article 37 (7) provides that an immediate appeal against a ruling from a ruling granting enforcement of an arbitral award has no effect of staying enforcement, and instead allows the appellate court to order that enforcement be stayed upon security as a condition or that it be continued. The draft enactment contains no sentence corresponding to this.

Article 8 of the draft enactment applies the Civil Procedure Act mutatis mutandis insofar as not contrary to its nature. Civil Procedure Act Article 447 provides that an immediate appeal against a ruling has the effect of staying enforcement. If this provision is applied mutatis mutandis as written, enforcement is halted by the mere immediate appeal against a ruling from a ruling granting enforcement. The advance notice repeatedly cites balance with the Arbitration Act as a reason, but whether in this respect it seeks the same result as the Arbitration Act or a different result is not written anywhere in either the advance notice or the provisions.

The advance notice explains that the Convention seeks to raise the effectiveness of outcomes while preserving the advantages of mediation. Whether an immediate appeal against a ruling has the effect of staying enforcement bears directly on that effectiveness. Is the effect of staying enforcement of an immediate appeal against a ruling from a ruling granting enforcement to be provided expressly as in the Arbitration Act, or left to the mutatis mutandis application of the Civil Procedure Act?

Sources for this section: Draft bill attached to the advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (draft), hwpx · National Law Information Center, current Arbitration Act (Act No. 21065, effective October 1, 2025) · National Law Information Center, current Civil Procedure Act (Act No. 21993, effective October 2, 2026) · National Participatory Legislation Center, advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (Ministry of Justice Public Notice No. 2026-178)

How Far Is a Ruling Enforcing a Modified Agreement Content Permitted?

Article 6 (4) provides that, where necessary for enforcement, the court may, with the consent of both parties, modify the content of the agreement set out in the writing within a scope that does not alter its substance and issue a ruling granting enforcement. The requirements are three: necessity for enforcement, consent of both parties, and no alteration of the substance. What the substance refers to, and whether, for example, the arrangement of a date of performance, a currency, or a method of payment constitutes an alteration of substance, is not provided by the provisions.

If both parties do not consent, modification is not possible, and what then remains is whether the court dismisses the application, or grants permission only for the portions that can be enforced without modification. Article 6 (5), subparagraph 2 anticipates the case of granting permission only in part, but Article 5, subparagraph 1, item (e) makes the fact that the content of the obligation cannot be determined a ground for refusal. The boundary between whether an inadequately determined agreement is saved through modification or treated as a ground for refusal does not appear in the provisions.

The court's act of amending the wording of the agreement may stand in a relation of tension with the advance notice's explanation that party autonomy is respected. If a modified ruling granting enforcement is to be permitted, how are the scope in which the substance is not altered, and the handling where there is no consent, to be provided in the provisions?

Sources for this section: Draft bill attached to the advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (draft), hwpx · National Participatory Legislation Center, advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (Ministry of Justice Public Notice No. 2026-178)

Where Lies the Boundary Between Settlement Agreements Without an Agreement for Application and Exclusions From Application?

Article 2 (1) applies this Act only where the parties have made an agreement to the effect that the agreement may be recognized or enforced under the Convention or this Act. The advance notice explains this structure of choice by reference to the possibility that settlement agreements that do not contemplate the Convention may be unsuited to court enforcement. A settlement agreement reached through mediation without such an agreement remains a settlement agreement under Civil Act Articles 731 and 732, and a party wishing enforcement must proceed to the separate trial procedure stated in the reasons for enactment.

What wording constitutes an agreement to that effect, whether the agreement must be within the settlement agreement or may be in a separate writing, and whether an agreement may be made separately after the mediation, are not provided by the provisions. As to exclusions from application, the principal contents of the advance notice explain that settlement agreements whose subject matter is all legal relationships relating to consumer contracts and employment contracts are excluded, while Article 2 (2), subparagraph 1 of the attached provisions also records those whose subject matter is legal relationships relating to family or inheritance. Where provisions relating to labor or inheritance are partly mixed into a settlement agreement for a commercial dispute, whether the whole is excluded or only that part is excluded is likewise not clear from the text.

How are the form and timing of the agreement for application, and the handling of settlement agreements that fall within only part of the exclusions from application, to be provided in the provisions?

Sources for this section: Draft bill attached to the advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (draft), hwpx · National Participatory Legislation Center, advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (Ministry of Justice Public Notice No. 2026-178) · National Law Information Center, current Civil Act (Act No. 21454, effective March 17, 2026)

Commencement and remaining issues

Article 1 of the Addenda to the enactment bill provides that it takes effect on the date of promulgation, and Article 2 provides that it applies from the Case in which an application for approval or enforcement DECISION is first received after commencement. Because the criterion for application is the time the application is received, a settlement agreement formed through conciliation before commencement may also become subject to application if an application is filed after commencement. The Addenda do not separately provide, however, whether an application agreement under Article 2 (1) could have been made before commencement with reference to this Act, or whether an agreement referring only to the Convention is sufficient. This article does not calculate dates under the proposed conditions of commencement.

The enactment bill contains no provision on Jurisdiction. The notice explains that amendments to the Court Organization Act and the Civil Procedure Act, which establish the Maritime and International Commercial Court and recognize exclusive Jurisdiction over international commercial Cases, passed the plenary session of the National Assembly on February 12, 2026; that Cases related to international commercial dispute conciliation are expected to fall within that exclusive Jurisdiction; and that they are scheduled to take effect on March 1, 2028. The National Assembly legislative status screen shows that the substitute bill for the Civil Procedure Act, Bill No. 2216606, was passed as originally proposed at the plenary session on February 12, 2026, and was promulgated as Act No. 21455 on March 17, 2026. This article was unable to confirm its effective date and the current text of the exclusive Jurisdiction provision. Which court receives applications during the period between the enactment bill, which takes effect on the date of promulgation, and the exclusive Jurisdiction, which will take effect later, is determined solely by the mutatis mutandis application of Article 8.

This article has not read the text of the Convention, the reasons for enactment and amendment by article, the contents of the 616 legislative opinions, or the review results of the Ministry of Government Legislation. It has not confirmed whether the Convention has been ratified or has entered into force. It neither supports nor opposes the enactment bill, and does not predict its submission to or the outcome of its handling by the National Assembly. How does it provide that applications made before Jurisdiction is determined and application agreements concluded before commencement are to be treated?

Sources for this section: Draft bill attached to the advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (draft), hwpx · National Participatory Legislation Center, advance legislative notice: Bill for the Enactment of the Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Resulting from International Commercial Mediation (Ministry of Justice Public Notice No. 2026-178) · National Participatory Legislation Center, National Assembly legislative status: Partial Amendment Bill to the Civil Procedure Act (alternative bill) (Bill No. 2216606)