本件判決案例事實，為一台灣公司與美商間的爭議事件，兩造協議約定仲裁地為臺北、依ICC 仲裁機構規則進行仲裁。仲裁判斷後經提起撤銷仲裁判斷之訴，歷經三審，最高法院於111年2月24日作出駁回決定，其要旨理由如下：依仲裁法第47條第1項規定：「…或在中華民國領域內依外國法律作成之仲裁判斷，為外國仲裁判斷」，本件依ICC仲裁規則為之，乃符上述定義為外國仲裁判斷。外國仲裁判斷與內國仲裁判斷之性質與效力有異；前者並不直接被賦予相當於內國仲裁判斷之效力，尚須依仲裁法第47條第2項經我國法院審查、裁定承認後，始得聲請執行。

同時，仲裁法第49、50條設有拒絕承認外國仲裁判斷之規定，異於同法第四章「仲裁判斷之執行」；因此，第五章「撤銷仲裁判斷之訴」中第40條所規定者，應以本國仲裁判斷為對象，並不包括外國仲裁判斷。從而，本件撤銷仲裁判斷之請求，不應允許。

判決全文

The Supreme Court of Taiwan recently pronounced a landmark judgment on a legal matter between a Taiwanese and an international corporation. The case revolved around the application to set aside an arbitral award that was determined under the ICC arbitration rules with Taipei serving as the seat of arbitration.

The judgment was delivered on February 24, 2022, and its central finding is as follows: According to Article 47(1) of the Taiwan Arbitration Law, “a foreign arbitral award is one that is either … or issued pursuant to foreign laws within the territory of the Republic of China." Hence, the challenged award qualifies as a foreign arbitral award, as it aligns with the definition outlined in the law.

Distinctions between Foreign and Native Arbitral Awards
The court took the opportunity to clarify the legal differences between foreign and native arbitral awards. Unlike native arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards are not accorded the same legal status. The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards requires special oversight and recognition by Taiwanese courts, in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Taiwan Arbitration Law.
Furthermore, the provisions for dismissing applications for recognition of foreign arbitral awards are laid down in Articles 49 and 50 of the Taiwan Arbitration Law. These provisions stand in contrast to Chapter 4, which pertains to the "Enforcement of Arbitral Award."

Specific Application to the Case
In light of the existing legal framework, the court concluded that Article 40 of Chapter 5, titled "Revocation of the Arbitral Award," only applies to native arbitral awards. Therefore, the application to revoke the disputed foreign arbitral award was deemed inadmissible and consequently overruled. This judgment sets a precedent in Taiwanese arbitration law, clearly delineating the legal processes and distinctions between domestic and foreign arbitral awards.

Access to the Full Judgment
For those interested in the detailed legal reasoning and the comprehensive content of the judgment, it can be accessed through the official link provided here