• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2010

L/C provides the exporter and the importer with safe assurance in the exchange of goods for payment in international trade. It involves a number of parties. Although the parties may have confidence in their client, bad faith or ignorance of international banking practice by any of these parties could cause the failure of transaction, which makes international trade a risky business. Most of the risks are found in transport document, which can cause disputes. There are many factors in the risk of transport documents under L/C transaction. One most common risk factor for the beneficiary in all transport documents is even if there is no discrepancy in document, the issuing bank or the applicant refuses to pay or delay payment insisting there is a discrepancy. In some very rare cases, the beneficiary may not get paid due to unfair injunction of the local court of the applicant. For the applicant, most common risk factors are fake bill and fraud. Risks classified according to the sorts of transport documents are as follows. 1. In B/L, payment can be refused because it is regarded as charter party B/L, although there is no real charter party contract. And the applicant can bear the potential risk of the loss or deterioration of cargo through transhipment of the cargo loaded on board in container if transhipment is prohibited without excluding of UCP 600 article 20 (c). 2. In charter party B/L, the applicant may take delivery without paying when charter party B/L is signed by charterer, which can result in a big loss for the beneficiary and the negotiating bank. And risks may arise when cargo is seized because the charterer does not pay the hire. The applicant and the issuing bank are also vulnerable to a risk - Against whom should they file a suit when cargo gets damaged during transportation? 3. In multimodal transport document, which is subject to a conflict because there is a big difference in viewpoints between transport industry and banks, conflicts may also arise when L/C requires ocean B/L and accepts multimodal transport document at the same time, but does not specify the details. 4. In air waybill, where the consignee is not the issuing bank but the applicant, risks may take place to the beneficiary when the applicant takes delivery but refuses to pay asserting minor discrepancies in document. The applicant may also bear the risk when cargo may not be loaded because air waybill is a received bill. Another risk may arise when although the applicant prohibits transhipment without excluding UCP 600 article 23 (c), the cargo may be transhipped, provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same air waybill.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권4호
• /
• pp.241-265
• /
• 2013

은행은 오직 서류만을 기초로, 서류가 문면상 일치하는 제시인지 여부를 심사하여야 하며, 물품이나 기초거래 또는 기타 거래관련 사항들을 심사할 필요는 없다. 은행은 제시서류의 형식 충분성 정확성 진정성 위조 여부 또는 법적효력에 대하여 어떠한 의무나 책임도 지지 아니한다. 본 논문의 연구 목적은 신용장거래에서 은행의 서류 심사에 관하여 고찰하는바, 특히 국제상업회의소(ICC)가 제정한 신용장통일규칙(Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credit, 2007 Revision, ICC Publication No.600)과 국제표준은행관행(International Standard Banking Practice, ISBP Publication No.745), Banking Committee의 견해 및 영국의 판례를 중심으로 연구를 진행하였다. 그동안 신용장에 대하여는 그 중요성만큼이나 다양한 분야에서 연구가 진행되어 왔으며, 특히 은행의 서류심사 기준과 요건, 서류심사표준과 불일치서류 제시에 따른 효과, 사기의 문제 및 수익자의 일치하는 제시에 따른 개설은행의 의무 등 다수의 논문이 발표되었다. 선행연구와의 차별성에 관하여, 본 논문은 은행의 서류심사 시 고려사항과 서류불일치에 따른 은행의 조치를 중심으로 UCP600 규정(UCP500과의 비교)의 해석은 물론 2013년 발행된 ISBP745와 다수의 외국판례를 분석 고찰함으로써 실무당사자들에게 필요한 사전지식과 정보를 제공하는데 의의를 두었다.