• 정보학연구
• /
• 제3권4호
• /
• pp.55-72
• /
• 2000

본 연구는 오늘날 국제금융 또는 국제건설공사거래 외에 매매대금의 지급을 위해 활용되는 보증신용장을 중심으로 하여 보증신용장의 본질과 보증신용장과 관련된 국제규칙을 분석한 다음, 보증신용장에 관한 신통일규칙의 제정배경과 규정된 내용 기존의 UCP와 URDG 등과 비교하여 이 규칙의 효용성과 활용상의 문제점들을 구체적으로 제시하였다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제53권
• /
• pp.75-97
• /
• 2012

This study primarily concerns the transfer of letter of credit. A transferable credit is a credit that clearly specifies it is 'transferable' and may be made available in whole or in part to second beneficiary by the request of the first beneficiary. the transfer of the credit is available where the seller as a middleman in intermediate trades purchases from domestic and international supplier. The purpose of this study is to examine the transfer of letter of credit in the UCP600. Having recognized the differences, the study analyzes the transfer of letter of credit under the UCP600 in comparison to those under the ISP98. The ISP98, like the UCP600, stipulates for the requirement of transfer, the number of transfer, conditions of transfer, the replacement of the name of first beneficiary.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.263-283
• /
• 2011

There are two typical international rules in issuing guarantee for obligations of party which is responsible to provide some duties such as services, construction, plants, loan repayment, etc. The two internationally recognized rules are currently ISP98 and URDG758. ISP98 was firstly introduced in 1998 for American banks to issue standby letter of credit domestic and overseas for the area where UCP does not cover. URDG was introduced first in 1991 in the name of URDG458 but it has not been widely used and therefore new URDG named URDG758 came out in 2010 to accommodate more standard guarantee practice. At the face of these two prevailing international rules, the users are sometimes confused which rule would be more suitable for their individual transaction. This led us to conduct a comparative analysis on these two rules. Our study suggests that URDG758 is more adequate for construction, ship-building and plants-supply obligations whilst ISP98 is for financial obligations. Also attentions are required when issues such as counter guarantee, governing rule, presentation period, document examination period and default statement exist. This is because ISP98 and URDG758 have different view points.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제13권4호
• /
• pp.275-295
• /
• 2011

신용장거래에서 은행이 신용장조건과의 일치성 여부를 심사할 때 비서류적 조건을 고려하도록 요구하는 시도는 신용장의 독립성의 원칙을 저해하여, 은행의 신용장거래에 따른 위험을 증가시킨다. 따라서 UCP500에서부터 신용장의 비서류적 조건은 무시된다고 규정하게 되었다. 단 ICC Position Paper No.3에 따라 신용장에 관련 서류가 요구되었다면 유효성이 인정되었다. UCP600도 UCP500과 마찬가지로 규정하고 있지만 UCP600에는 ICC Position Paper No.3이 적용되지 않으므로 비서류적 조건과 관련된 서류를 신용장에서 요구하였더라도 무시된다는 점이 다르다. 신용장거래에 UCP600이 적용된다고 하여 비서류적 조건이라고 하여 무조건 무시되지 않는다는 점에 유의하여야 한다. 국제표준은행관행에서는 비서류적 조건 중 서류조건으로 전환하기 어려운 것은 유효성이 인정되고 있다. 즉 각국의 판례에서 객관적 지표로서 결정될 수 있거나 개설은행 자신의 기록 또는 활동으로부터 확인할 수 있는 것은 비서류적 조건이더라도 유효성이 인정되고 있다. ISP98과 URDG758에서는 이와 같은 것을 비서류적 조건으로 보지 않는다고 규정하고 있다. 개설의뢰인은 신용장 개설을 신청할 때 비서류적 조건이 기재되지 않도록 유의하여야 한다.

• NEWSLETTER 전기공업
• /
• 98-6호통권199호
• /
• pp.8-19
• /
• 1998

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제76권
• /
• pp.103-123
• /
• 2017

If additional condition in letter of credit is used in malicious way, it affects the international trade transaction in jeopardy. Therefore, it's significant to identify whether additional conditions are malicious or ordinary in the transaction with letter of credit. In normal cases, thanks to lots of useful features as an international payment method, such as security of payment, legal protection, and versatility, a letter of credit is widely used in international trade. However, even with these advantageous features, a letter of credit is complicate and costly to use, compared to other payment methods. Furthermore, due to its principle of independence from underlying contract, a use of letter of credit creates another type of concern for proper handling and needs significant caution upon field use. At some points, malicious additional conditions are used for buyer's advantage in deal making and fraud instance in worst situation. In addition, some countries request malicious conditions against sellers as a non-tariff barrier. Therefore it's extremely important to recognize whether malicious additional condition exists in letter of credit and, if so, how to deal with it. This study delivers the information to distinguish and categorize the malicious conditions in various cases and to figure out how to deal with them for safer trade with less risk.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.175-205
• /
• 2005

One of the important issues facing current letter of credit practice is the effect of nondocumetary conditions. A nondocumentary condition is a condition contained in the credit without stating the document to be presented in compliance therewith, so nondocumentary condition must be ascertained by reference to factual matters rather than by review of a tendered document. This study attempts to examine the regulations in UCP, ISP98 and UCC on the nondocumetary conditions and the opinions on the effect of nondocumetary conditions and to analyze various cases on the effect of nondocumetary conditions. The results of this study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, UCP, ISP98 and UCC stipulate that banks will deem nondocumetary conditions as not stated and will disregard then So the legal standards for nondocumetary conditions have established. Secondly, courts used to permit the effect of nondocumetary conditions on the basis of the Wichita rule, party autonomy. Thirdly, issuing banks and applicants should not attempt to put in any nondocumetary conditions in order to prevent disputes on the effect of nondocumetary conditions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.161-178
• /
• 2009

This article focuses on the enforceability of arbitration agreements m the dispute of standby letter of credit, especially with the case analysis of the leading case from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In Nova Hut a.s. v. Kaiser Group International Inc. case, while the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause, a guarantee to assure contractor's performance did not contain an arbitration clause. Nova Hut drew on the standby for the Contractor's failure to deliver contractual obligations. Against the Kaiser's action under US Bankruptcy law, Nova Hut moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, to compel arbitration, and to dismiss the complaint. The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Nova Hut's motions. On appeal, Kaiser argued that it was not subject to arbitration since it was not a party to the contract. It also argued that Nova Hut had waived its right to arbitration by filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding and commencing legal actions in other countries. The appeals court noted that in order to avoid arbitration on those grounds prejudice must be shown. It indicated that because there was no long delay in requesting arbitration and no discovery conducted m the course of litigation, the Kaiser could not demonstrate actual prejudice on the part of Owner. In light of public policy favoring arbitration, the nature of the claims in the parties' agreements, Kaiser's conduct in embracing the agreements, and their expectation of benefit, the appeals court ruled that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in requiring the Parent to arbitrate.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.179-213
• /
• 2013

While a performance type guarantee is required as a security for non-performance risk by a seller, a payment guarantee is used as a security for non-payment risk by a buyer(or a borrower in a loan agreement). A payment guarantee is a type of independent bank guarantee, bank guarantee, bond, demand guarantee, or standby letter of credit. A guarantor accepts a credit risk of a principal which is normally a buyer in a contract for sale of goods. A payment guarantee is independent of the underlying relationship between the applicant and the beneficiary. The guarantor is only empowered to examine the beneficiary's demand and determine the payment on its face to the terms of the guarantee. A payment guarantee is thus different from a suretyship. The principle of independence carries a significant advantages for a guarantor as well as for a beneficiary. While a documentary credit requires B/L, commercial invoice, packing list, inspection certificate, etc., a typical payment guarantee does not require any evidence for a seller's performance of the underlying contract other than written demand. In this respect payment guarnatee can be a more secured facility than a documentary credit. A payment guarantee normally comes into force from the issuing date and shall remain in effect until all sums guaranteed shall be paid in full by a buyer(or a borrower) or by a guarantor. Although a guarantor shall pay a demand made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the payment guarantee, a payment demand may be denied when it is determined to be abusive or unfair.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2009

This paper aims at assessing reasonableness for restraining the independence principle in the operation of documentary credit in case of the illegality appeared in the underlying transactions. It has been a major rule under the independence principle to keep the credit operation free from the defences made by the issuing bank and/or credit applicant with a view to prevent the payment as specified under the credit. And also, it is generally accepted in the international commercial community to examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the document alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. Even though these two essences are major rules in the credit operation, if a presentation is made with the documents forged or materially fraudulent, the issuing bank can refuse to pay the documents in respect of fraud rule based on fraud exception for which a court of appropriate jurisdiction would enjoin such honour. Now we have newly come to another situation to determine whether or not we have to apply the same as fraud rule which is applicable to the illegality in the underlying contract under the new conception of illegality principle based on illegality exception. English Commercial Court handled the illegality case under the case of Mahonia Ltd., v. JP Morgan Chase Bank in 2003 and Justice Colman decided that issuing bank can rely on illegality affecting a letter of credit as an excuse for failure to pay. This judgement brought about the acceptance of illegality principle based on illegality exception as a defence to payment under a letter of credit as far as the illegality concerned in the underlying transactions. It is noticeable that this case will affect our international commercial community more to rely on the illegality in the underlying transactions as a good issue to stop payment for the issuing bank in the L/C operation.