The Federal Arbitration Act and the States Arbitration acts of the United States approve that the an arbitration clause should be construed broadly and the Courts interpreted it broadly without being curbed by the written meaning of clause itself. The Courts also divided the interpretation of arbitration clause from the interpretation of other clauses of contract to approve the validity of arbitration clause and further expanded the scope of arbitration. However, the Arbitration Act of Korea does not specify a general principle about how an arbitration clause should be interpreted. The Supreme Court did not have a case yet but the lower courts kept their posture that an arbitration clause should be clear by resulting narrow interpretation and should be written to the extent that it excludes the power of courts from jurisdiction. As a result, there would be cases that arbitration is not permitted although an arbitration clause exists. The parties intending arbitration are frustrated about how to draft an arbitration clause into their agreement. There were the cases that the parties which took the prevailing position attempted to delay dispute resolutions by dragging disputes into litigation even if they agreed to resolve through arbitration, on the basis that an arbitration clause was incomplete. Although the arbitration statutes of the United States cannot apply in Korea, the way of their approaches to the interpretation of arbitration clause can be taken into consideration in view of the globalization of arbitration.