• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제9권
• /
• pp.5-44
• /
• 1996

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제11권
• /
• pp.361-388
• /
• 1998

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제11권
• /
• pp.389-414
• /
• 1998

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제76권
• /
• pp.77-101
• /
• 2017

This article provides the definitions of the negotiation of credit, the negotiating bank and the negotiation credit. It further describes a number of legal status of negotiating banks by looking into the legal relations firstly between the beneficiary and the negotiating bank and secondly between the issuing bank and the negotiating bank. This study is in large part based on relevant provisions of UCP 600 and decisions of the Supreme court of South Korea. Under UCP 600 the definition of negotiation requires the purchase by the nominated negotiating bank of the required documents by advancing funds on or before the banking day on which reimbursement is due to the negotiating bank. A negotiation credit authorizes the negotiating bank who is a nominated bank to purchase from the beneficiary the documents required by the letter of credit and to present those documents to the issuing bank for reimbursement. If the credit is to be honoured at sight, reimbursement is due when the issuing bank determines that there has been a conforming presentation. Reimbursement under a letter of credit available by acceptance or by deferred payment is due at maturity of the credit. In particular, while the timing of advance by the nominated negotiating bank is up to the parties, a promise of the negotiating bank to advance the purchase price to a fraudulent beneficiary does not confer immunity from letter-of-credit fraud prior to its performance. This requires the negotiating bank who is notified of material fraud prior to making an advance to beneficiary to avoid a loss by using the fraud.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.237-263
• /
• 2013

Traditionally, a L/C (letter of credit) has been known as a relatively low risk method of payment. This is why L/C has been used in international trade. However, L/C has a number of weak points such as high cost, long processing time, and complicated documents. Using an electronic L/C is one way to solve those weak points. In Korea, there are two types of electronic L/C. One is the EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) based L/C and the other one is the XML (Extensible Markup Language) based L/C. The former, established in 1990's, is sent from banks to the beneficiary solely through VAN (Value Added Network, KTNET) operators. On the other hand the latter, started in 2005, is sent from banks to KFTC (Korea Financial Telecommunications & Clearings Institute) for management of the L/C balance, as well as to KTNET. So far, paper L/C and EDI based L/C have been used overwhelmingly instead of XML based L/C in spite of the aforesaid disadvantages. In this paper, the authors examined empirically why the users of electronic L/C were reluctant to use XML based L/C. The results are as follows. First, the users of paper L/C were more dissatisfied than the users of electronic L/C due to many factors such as cost, the time required, and information reuse. Second, the users who have more experience with XML based L/C wanted to adopt integrated management with EDI based L/C more than the users who had not experienced XML based L/C. Third, the users who had used more than one form of L/C wanted to adopt integrated management to EDI and XML based L/C more than the users who had only used one form of L/C. Therefore, the authority for electronic L/C should consider a change of the policy from the XML based electronic L/C oriented to integrated management of the various types of L/C.

• 정보학연구
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.51-67
• /
• 2002

무역거래에서 통신수단의 급격한 발달로 서류가 상대방에게 전달되는 과정에서 서류상의 내용은 전자문서교환으로 즉시 전달될 수 있으나 문서의 원본은 그렇지 못한 실정이므로 각종 전파나 전자매체로 전달되어오는 문서의 진위를 가려내는 것이 가장 큰 문제로 지적되고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는UCP 500의 규정을 근거로 정보 및 전자매체하의 신용장거래에서 원본과 사본에 대한 은행의 인정 및 판단기준 및 이와 관련된 사례 및 실무상의 유의점을 구체적으로 제시함으로써 신용장거래에서 은행이 서류를 심사할 때 무엇이 원본이고 무엇이 사본 서류인지에 대한 명백한 근거를 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.65-88
• /
• 2012

Even though there are some discrepancies in detail with the legal characteristic of the issuing bank's notice to the beneficiary of opening of the letter of credit, article 25 of "the Korean Private International Act(hereunder, 'KPIA')" can be applied to the legal relation between the issuing bank and the beneficiary or the negotiating bank. According to article 26 of the KPIA, if there is no agreement between the issuing bank and its opponent party as to the governing law issues, a state's law which has the closest relationship with the subject case may be applied. In the latter case, given the facts that the issuing bank plays important roles in every phasis of the sale of goods by the letter of credit, a law of place where the issuing bank's business premises is situated(the $lex$ $situs$) can be the applicable law. Meanwhile, "the Korean Supreme Court(hereunder 'KSC')" held that the beneficiary or the negotiating bank can claim any damages arising due to the refusal or deferred payment of the issuing bank, and the law which governs the above mentioned situation is the same law that is applicable to the legal relation between the issuing bank and the beneficiary or the negotiating bank. The main reason of the KSC's ruling is that the nature of the legitimate interest rate which is stated in article 3 of "the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition etc. of Legal Proceeding(hereunder 'ASCELP')" is substantial matters, not procedural. Taking into account, however, that the main object of ASCELP lies in expedition of legal proceeding, prompt realization of people's rights and duties, and prevention of delayed legal proceeding, it is recommendable that ASCELP, instead of the law applicable to the legal relation between the issuing bank and the beneficiary or the negotiating bank, should be applied to the cases in which the malicious debtor's only and main purpose is delaying the legal proceedings. On the other hand, even if the issuing bank's duty of examination of the documents which were tendered by the beneficiary or the negotiating bank is restricted to the formality and strict conformity of the documents and not the substantiality of the documents, the issuing bank still has to examine the documents with due diligence that is required to the banks whose main business is sales of documents, not the real goods. In this regard, under the circumstances where the document lacked the regularity and/or the formality on its face because of the forgery of the document and where it was expected that an ordinary banker might have easily found any faults with the document, the issuing bank must compensate any parties for damages when it pays money without due diligence as a banker who engaged in the sales of documents.

• 전기의세계
• /
• 제10권
• /
• pp.90-97
• /
• 1963

이 발전소는 전원개발 5개년 계획에 의거 급진하는 전력수요를 충족하고저 미국 AID자금에 의거, 신설되는 132MW용량의 화력발전소이다. 이 발전소 건설공사는 1962년 4월 AID와 Loan agreement를 체결함으로써 IGE와 한전간에 설계 및 건설공사에 대한 계약이 정식으로 체결되었으며 1962년 8월 15일에 비로서 됨으로써 AID 차관 Dollor portion의 신용장이 개발되므로서 이 공사계약은 발효하게 되었다. 본 고에서는 금산 화력발전소의 건설개요에 대하여 간단히 소개하고저 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제11권
• /
• pp.301-335
• /
• 1998

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.189-211
• /
• 2011

This article aims at analysing the practical problems of FOB and CIF terms relating to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 in case of L/C transactions and presenting the defending measures against them. According to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010, FOB and CIF terms are to be used only for sea or inland waterway transport and require the seller deliver the goods on board the vessel nominated by the buyer at named port of shipment. So if FOB and CIF terms will be used in sea transport under L/C transaction, the seller should ship the goods on the nominated vessel and present the shipping document indicating "on board vessel" to the issuing bank but the parties agree to present the received bill of lading according to special condition on L/C which is" received bill of lading are acceptable". In practical transaction, FOB and CIF terms are usually used in aircraft cargo, container cargo or multimodal transport. these facts are a violation of Incoterms. Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 which regulated that FOB and CIF terms may not be appropriate where goods are handed over the carrier before they are on board the vessel for example goods in container. These transactions are a temporary expedient and breach of Incoterms in the international trade which must be corrected as soon as possible.