• Proceedings of the Korea Information Processing Society Conference
• /
• 2021.11a
• /
• pp.1353-1356
• /
• 2021

블록체인은 다수의 노드 네트워크 내에서 거래내역을 분산 저장함으로써 투명성을 확보하는 기술이다. 최근에는 금전적 가치를 지닌 선하증권(Bill of Lading, B/L 서류)에 블록체인을 적용하여 무결성을 확보하고 거래 과정을 간소화 하기위한 연구가 진행되고 있다. 본 논문에서는 거래자 중심의 블록체인 기반의 선하증권 시스템을 제안한다. 수출자는 발행 받은 선하증권을 AI(Artificial intelligence)기반의 OCR(Optical character recognition)기능을 통해 블록체인에 등록하고, 각국 은행에서 열람하여 신용장거래를 진행한다. 수입자는 선하증권 정보를 담은 QR(Quick Response code)코드로 자기증명을 하여 물품을 인도 받게 된다. 이는 수출자 측에서는 선적서류를 우편으로 보낼 시간과 비용을 단축하고, 서류의 무결성을 입증할 수 있다는 점에서 큰 효과를 얻을 수 있다. 수입자 측에서는 서류가 등록됨과 동시에 확인할 수 있고, 해당 거래를 신뢰할 수 있다는 이점을 갖는다. 마지막으로 은행 측에서는 선적서류에 대해 보안성을 갖출 수 있고 검증이 더 신속하게 이루어질 수 있다.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.173-194
• /
• 2021

This study aims to derive precaution points for issuing banks in refusing payment under L/C through literature review and examination of court cases and official opinions of ICC Banking Commission with regard to the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 that stipulates obligations of issuing banks in refusing payment. If the issuing bank fails to act in accordance with this article, it shall be precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation. Therefore, it is crucial that issuing banks should be well informed of this article. When discrepant documents are presented, however, issuing banks seldom refuse payment because, in most cases, the applicants waive the discrepancies. For this reason, issuing banks have few chances to deal with payment refusal in practice and thus they occasionally end up failing to observe the provisions of the article. Such court cases include Kookmin Bank and Korean Exchange Bank (currently Hana Bank) that failed to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice losing the lawsuits. It should be noted that if issuing banks disregard the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 and thus fail to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice, they may face fatal situations in which they must make payment against discrepant documents.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.22
• /
• pp.173-197
• /
• 2004

Letter of Credit between buyer and seller in International Trade Transaction is the means of payment which makes International Trade operate smoothly by guaranteeing an exporter against non-payment and an importer against non-delivery. Therefore, the parties to a sale apply UCP500 established by the International Chamber of Commerce, in accordance with principle of the freedom of contract among the parties concerned, to look to their own legal stability. However, we may recognize some cases to have been applied principle of faith and trust, one of the dominant principles of the civil law, by the Korean Supreme Court and other cases to have not been applied that principle by the Korean Supreme Court. The Court shall apply UCP500 strictly as long as the parties concerned adopt UCP500 in view of the legal stability. In other words, in case that the Court applies principle of faith and trust to the case related to L/C, this rule - principle of faith and trust - should apply to the subject matter which have not stipulated in UCP500 under certain restriction. We suggest keeping in mind points to korean companies as follows; First, the parties to a sale shall understand L/C basis transaction and principles related to L/C deeply. Second, the exporter shall prepare documents in compliance with L/C and fulfil his or her obligation according to UCP500 and L/C related to the contract. Third, as buyer or importer, when he or she receive the shipping documents with discrepancies from the notifying bank, he or she makes him or herself clear to all the parties concerned. Fourth, as bank, she shall examine all the documents according to UCP500 and L/C related to the contract, and if any document with discrepancies, the bank, by all means, shall approach applicant first, and then decide whether to pay the credit amount to beneficiary or not to.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.22
• /
• pp.137-171
• /
• 2004

Under Article 2 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 Revision. UCP), letter of credit means an arrangement whereby an issuing bank is to make a payment to a beneficiary, or is to accept and pay bills of exchange drawn by the beneficiary, or authorises another bank to effect such payment, or to accept and pay such bills of exchange, or to negotiate, against stipulated document(s), provided that the terms and conditions of the letter of credit are complied with. In letter of credit operations, all parties concerned deal with documents, and not with goods, services and/or other performances to which the documents may relate (UCP, Article 4). It is important to note that under UCP, if a letter of credit contains conditions without stating the document(s) to be presented in compliance therewith, banks will deem such conditions as not stated and will disregard them (Article 13 c). Section 5-108(g) of the Uniform Commercial Code also contains a similar provision. However on several occasions the Korean Supreme Court held that non-documentary conditions in letter of credit governed by UCP could be regarded as valid, although they were not desirable in the context of letter of credit transactions. The rationale underlying the decisions was that parties to the letter of credit transactions are free to determine the terms and conditions of the relevant letter of credit. After reviewing the relevant provisions of UCP, UCC, the International Standby Practices (ISP98) and the Supreme Court decisions of Korea, the author suggests that we classify conditions that do not require any documents (so called apparent non-documentary conditions) into two categories and treat them differently. There are apparent non-documentary conditions that are consistent with the nature of letter of credit and those which are inconsistent with the nature of letter of credit. In the first category there are two sub-categories, (i) those which are valid and (ii) those which are invalid and thus should be disregarded. In the second category there are two sub-categories, (i) those which are invalid and thus should be disregarded and (ii) those which are valid but deprive the instrument of the nature as letter of credit.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2001

The letter of credit is quintessentially international. In the absence of international legal system, a private system based on banking practices has evolved, commanding the adherence of the international letter of credit community and providing the foundation of th reputation of this instrument. To maintain this international system, it is vital that international standard banking practice should not be subject to local interpretations that misconstrue or distort it. The UCP is a formulation of international standard banking practice. It is neither positive law nor a "contract term" in any traditional sense and its interpretation must be consonant with its character as a living repositary of international understanding in this field. As a result, the interpretation and application of specific articles of the UCP must be consistent with its evolving character and history and with the principles upon which sound letter of credit practice is predicated. This study, especially, focuses on article 13 of the UCP500 and 95UCC 5-108. Both articles introduce a standard of document examination to be used by banks to determine whether they comply facially with the terms of the credit. While, in the UCP, this standard is called international standard banking practices, in the UCC, this standard is called standard practices. I think that both standards are not same. Thus, first, this study look for categories of both standards and scope of application. the second subject is how can issuing bank act in the face of non-documentary condtion under this standard of document examination. Third is correlation between the principle of Strice Compliance and the standard.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2011

There can be analyzed severally on the acceptance conditions of freight forwarder's transport document under UCP. First, Bills of Lading issued by forwarding agents will be refused. This can be seen in the article 20 of 1933 Revision UCP(Brochure 82) and the article 20 of 1951 Revision UCP(Brochure 151). Second, Unless specifically authorized in the credit, Bills of Lading issued by forwarding agent will be rejected. It is prescribed in the front part (a) of article 17 of 1962 Revision UCP(Brochure 222) and the article 19 of 1974 Revision UCP(Publication No. 290). Third, Acceptance conditions are different according to the type of transport documents, that is either Bill of Lading or not. It is prescribed in the art 25 and article 26 of 1983 Revision UCP. Unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, transport document issued by a freight forwarder will be rejected unless it is the FIATA Combined Transport Bill of Lading approved by the International Chamber of Commerce or otherwise indicates that it is issued by a freight forwarder acting as a carrier or agent of a named carrier. On the other hand, unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, marine bill of lading issued by a freight forwarder will be rejected, unless it indicates that it is issued by such freight forwarder acting as a carrier, or as the agent of a named carrier. Fourth, transport documents issued by a freight forwarder will be accepted. This can be found in the article 30 of 1993 Revision UCP(ICC Publication No. 500) and the article 14 l of 2007 Revision UCP(ICC Publication No. 600). According to the former unless otherwise authorized in the Credit, transport document issued by a freight forwarder will only be accepted if it is appears on its face to indicate the name of the freight forwarder as a carrier or multimodal transport operator or its agent. The latter prescribed that a transport document will be accepted if it is issued by a freight forwarder by a agent of carrier or freight forwarder itself.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2011

International transactions have the threat of non-payment by the buyer or non-performance by the seller. Parties tend to search for additional means of securing performance and payment beyond the mere agreement in the contract. Such security may be achieved by means of a letter of credit. When contracting parties have agreed to pay by means of a letter of credit, the buyer's bank takes upon itself the obligation to pay the purchase price when the seller tenders the documents that are stipulated in the letter of credit. The documents must comply strictly with the terms of the credit.. The documents play a crucial role in letter of credit transaction. The principles of abstraction, separability and strict compliance governing the letter of credit transaction are considered. The concept of fundamental breach of Article 25 CISG was discussed. This article examines whether a failure to deliver documents conforming to the terms of the letter of credit can constitute a fundamental breach of the sales contract as defined by Article 25 of the CISG by the seller and thereby enable the buyer to avoid the contract. For letter of credit transactions it should be accepted that the delivery of non-performing documents constitutes a fundamental breach, if the result of this breach is that the bank refuses to pay the price for the goods. On the other hand, in the interpretation of Article 25 CISG, it should be noted that if the parties have agreed to payment by means of a letter of credit, they have simultaneously agreed to apply the strict compliance principle to the delivery of documents in the sales contract. Finally the parties should ensure that inconsistency between the requirements under the documentary credit and the requirements under the contract of sale is avoided, since the buyer may be in breach of his payment obligation if the seller cannot get paid under the documentary credit when his documents conform with the contract of sale.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.171-188
• /
• 2000

지속적으로 변화하는 무역관습의 흐름은 결제관습에 있어서도 새로운 변화를 초래하고 있는데 최근의 국제결제시스템중 가장 두드러진 변화는 전자적 방법에 의한 결제시스템의 대두이다. TradeCard는 이러한 전자결제시스템으로서 가장 대표적인 예로서 1994년 처음 사업이 시작된 이후 10년도 되지 않아 새로운 무역결제관습으로 정착되기 위한 상업적 활동에 나서고 있다. 본 논문은 이러한 TradeCard의 상업적 활동이 과연 순조롭게 추진되어 신용장을 비롯한 기존의 무역결제시스템에 추가 또는 대체되는 새로운 무역관습이 탄생할 수 있을지를 검토하고 있다. 이를 위해 본 논문은 먼저 TradeCard가 갖고 있는 특징을 몇 가지로 분류하여 살펴보았다. 즉, 무역절차의 전자화 과정에서 기능적 접근방법을 채택하였다는 점, 타 기관이나 조직과의 활발한 제휴, 비용과 시간을 절감시킬 수 있는 방법의 제시 등이 그것이다. 이러한 특징을 통해 TradeCard는 새로운 무역관습으로 자리잡을 수 있는 충분한 가능성을 갖고 있다는 것이 논자의 생각이다. 그러나 다음의 몇 가지 문제점 역시 갖고 있기 때문에 이를 해결하는 것이 그러한 가능성의 전제조건이 된다. 첫째, TradeCard를 통한 거래의 법적 안정성 확보이다. 이는 모든 전자거래가 공통으로 갖는 문제점이지만 TradeCard의 경우 거래조건의 이행여부에 대한 전자적 판단이라는 요소를 지니고 있어 이를 어떻게 법적으로 수용할 것인가의 문제가 제기된다. 둘째, TradeCard를 통한 거래에서 발생되는 피해에 대한 구제방법의 제시이다. 이는 아마도 보험을 통해서 해결할 수 있으리라 생각되지만 현재 TradeCard는 이부분에 대한 명확한 입장이 명시되지 않은 것 같다. 셋째, 국제적 전자거래를 안전하게 할 수 있는 방안으로 전자서명의 활용이 절실한데 이에 대한 상호인정의 해결이 필요하다는 점이다. 물론 이는 TradeCard의 역할이라기 보다는 우리 정부를 비롯한 각국의 정부당국의 몫이다. 그러나 이러한 모든 문제는 결국 얼마나 빨리 많은 사용자를 확보하여 시장의 힘을 통해 국제상관습으로 정착시킬 수 있는가의 문제로 귀착된다고 본다. 따라서 TradeCard는 처렴한 요금체계 및 사용자에 대한 인센티브의 제공 등을 통해 조기에 다수 사용자를 확보하는 것이 시급한 것으로 생각한다.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.27-48
• /
• 2011

Single window has become a critical point of trade facilitation. While Korea has set up the first web based single window 'uTtradeHub', China has also been working on a seamless single window. As strong governmental support, advanced technology, leading agency and legal framework are success factors for single window, China already has solid foundation for this. For the leading agency, this research suggests the CIECC as a leading agency with linkage to E-Port service for seamless trade service for companies. We expect that Chinese single window will materialize in near future by a leading agency with the help of strong governmental support.