Abstract
This study is to find the accurate interpretations for the UCP600 by integrating, ISBP745, Official Opinions of ICC Banking Commission and some Case Laws suggesting the reasonable implication for the upcoming UCP. Major results analyzed by this study are as follows. First, The preclusion rule, UCP600 Article 16(c), is closely connected with the doctrine of documentary cure, so the banks requirement of Single Notice must state all the discrepancies of the documents presented. Exceptionally if the cured documents by the presenter are happened to be inconsistent the initial notice the bank can require the presenter to re-tender within the expiry date or the last day for presentation. Secondly, The Issuing Bank can utilize the right of seeking a waiver of documentary discrepancies from the applicant with the time limit of 5 banking days. If the bank wants to require an applicant to report discrepancies promptly, he may include a provision in the reimbursement engagement limiting the time limit within which the applicant must give notice of facial discrepancies. Thirdly, if a credit contains a non-documentary condition, banks will deem such condition as not states and will disregard it. According to the principle of private autonony if a credit contains a non-documentary condition to be consistent with by the parties concerned in a credit the non-documentary condition can be treated, as an effective condition itself. Fourthly, according to the Korean Supreme Court's decision, negotiation includes the method of crediting the credit amount and then transfers such funds into a special account and controls the account. Finally, UCP600 Article 33 states a bank has no obligation to accept a presentation outside of its banking hours. However, there is no rule in UCP600 in regard to a presentation after the close of business. Hopefully the upcoming UCP has to stipulates a sort of definite article to determine such ambiguous.
