• 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
• /
• 제7권
• /
• pp.633-681
• /
• 1994

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.213-238
• /
• 2006

Deferred payment letter of credit is the L/C that makes the issuing bank to pay a beneficiary at maturity stipulated in the credit. In this deferred payment letter of credit transaction, is it possible that a confirming or nominating bank payor negotiate before maturity? and the confirming or nominating bank have legal protection when paid or negotiated before maturity? These problems are raised in argument. By the way, Korea, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy are positive on the above question, but France, United Kingdom, and Singapore are negative. Therefore, when using deferred payment letter of credit, it is required to keep in mind that the understanding of maturity stipulated in the credit is different among countries, legal principles of each nations, and researchers. And other problems are raised also as follows; the application of Fraud Rule and principle of independence and abstraction as nature of credit, when to pay credit amount to beneficiary, and refusal of payment due to poor quality. Finally, it is required to use deferred payment letter of credit, after full understanding of deferred payment letter of credit pointed out in this paper.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2011

This paper is to analyze the legality in which the fraud rule allow the issuer of L/C or a court to disrupt the payment to the beneficiary under the deferred payment credit when the nominated bank for deferred payment undertaking made prepayment or negotiation before the maturity date and fraud is identified to be involved. Since the function of commercial L/C is to provide absolute assurance of payment to a beneficiary, the fraud rule based on fraud exception has been known as the negative factor which lead to the disruption of "principle of independence & abstraction" under the commercial L/C transactions. As a result, the fraud rule is necessary to limit the activities of fraudsters, but its scope must be carefully circumscribed so as not to deny commercial utility to an instrument that exists to serve as an assurance of payment. But the fraud itself has not been firmly established because it is inherently pliable in its concept. There are numerous contents to describe the application of fraud to the L/C transactions as a standard such as egregious fraud, intentional fraud, L/C fraud(omitted here), flexible fraud, and constructive fraud. And so the standard applicable to the commercial transaction as the fraud rule would be high or low depending upon the various standards of fraud.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권4호
• /
• pp.433-456
• /
• 2012

확인은행은 수익자가 신용장조건과 일치하는 제시를 하면 수익자에게 대금지급을 확약한다. 그러나 신용장 사기가 명백한 경우 확인은행은 개설은행과 마찬가지로 대금을 지급할 의무를 지지 않는다. 즉 확인은행이 서류 위조에 대한 위험까지 부담하는 것은 아니다. 확인은행이 발견하지 못한 하자를 개설은행이 발견한 경우 확인은행이 수익자 또는 지정은행에 소구권을 행사할 수 없다. 왜냐하면 UCP600에서 서류 접수 후 5은행영업일이 경과하면 개설은행 또는 확인은행은 서류 하자를 이유로 대금지급을 거절할 수 없기 때문이다. 확인은행이 수익자의 하자 있는 서류의 용인을 개설은행에 요구하여, 개설은행이 이것을 용인하였다 하더라도 확인은행은 확인에 따른 책임을 지지 않는다. 기한부 매입신용장에서 확인은행이 지정은행인 경우 수익자가 신용장조건과 일치하는 서류를 제시하면 확인은행은 즉시 신용장 대금을 지급하여야 한다. 따라서 확인은행이 즉시 대금을 지급할 의사가 없다면 기한부신용장에서 연지급 또는 인수신용장을 이용하여야 한다. 수익자 입장에서 신용장 확인을 받더라도 서류 일치성 여부에 대한 분쟁이 발생할 수 있으므로 대금회수가 100% 보장되는 것은 아니다. 신용장 확인보다는 상환은행의 상환확약이 더 안전하다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권3호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2023

무역계약의 이행기일은 매도인의 물품인도 기일과 매수인의 대금지급 기일이다. 신용장거래에서 무역계약의 이행기일은 신용장에서 명시된 선적기일과 서류매입기일로 본다. 매도인은 매수인으로부터 신용장을 받고나서 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하여야 하며 이 기간이 경과하면 매도인은 신용장을 거절할 수 없다. 그러나 매수인의 귀책 사유로 인하여 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하지 못하는 경우에는 신용장에 명시된 선적기일까지 연장된다. 매도인이 신용장 변경을 요청한 경우에 매수인은 반드시 이를 수락하여 매도인이 원하는 신용장을 변경하여 매도인에게 개설하여야 한다. 매수인이 매도인의 신용장 변경 요청을 거절하면 A사는 B사가 요청한 대로 신용장 내용을 변경하여 다시 개설할 의무가 있고 A사가 단순히 신용장의 변경을 지체한 것이 아니라 B사의 신용장 요청을 거절한 경우에는 B사가 견적서에 합의하여 기대할 수 있는 바를 실질적으로 박탈하는 것으로 국제물품매매계약에 관한 국제연합협약 제25조가 규정한 본질적인 계약위반에 해당되어 B사는 무역계약을 해제할 수 있고 A사에게 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. A사의 무역계약 위반으로 인한 손해배상액은 이익의 상실을 포함하여 그 위반의 결과 B사가 입은 손실과 동등한 금액으로 하여야 한다.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.119-139
• /
• 2012

In the case of Banque Paribas V. Banco Santander in England for the reimbursement request of deferred payment credit by the nominated bank, the L/C-issuing bank refused to pay the proceeds at maturity because of a fraudulent transaction. The reason of refusal was that the nominated bank, Banco Santander, had no right of payment in deferred credit before its maturity if it made payment of proceeds without notice to the issuing bank, that is, payment not based upon a credit transaction but on its own account. However, in the case of ADIB V. Fortis Bank in America, the New York court made the decision that the deferred payment bank could not refuse to reimburse to the nominated bank, Fortis Bank, because of fraud. Its decision was based on the UCP600. We have analyzed and investigated the above two cases-one was an English court's decision and the other an American's. The English court's decision was made under UCP500, but the American court's was made under UCP600, which was revised in 2007. As a result, we can expect that from now on in deferred payment credit transactions, the power of the nominated bank will be greater than before, but the issuing bank will bear the risk of the beneficiary's fraud, so the issuing bank will be hesitant to issue deferred payment credit. Notwithstanding, we thought that the New York court decision would come into effect in the activation of deferred payment credit in practical trade transactions.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제11권3호
• /
• pp.287-309
• /
• 2009

There were many changes regarding Negotiation of document under UCP 600. First of all, the definition of Negotiation was changed. The UCP 500 stated "Negotiation means the giving of value for drafts and documents by the bank authorized to negotiation", but the UCP 600 defines "negotiation" as following "negotiation means the purchase by the nominated bank of drafts and/or documents under a complying presentation". Under the UCP 600 the meaning of negotiation was more clear than UCP 500. Second UCP 600 permits all deferred payment credits be discountable or negotiable. This amended rule equated the deferred payment credit with banker's acceptance credit which was contrary with the nature and the practice of former deferred payment credit transaction. Third, UCP 600 has also provided for reimbursement rights for nominated banks and a conceptual basis for protecting nominated banks against beneficiary fraud. In this paper, the problems regarding negotiation of document under UCP600 was studied and the solutions for the problems occurring in appling UCP 600 in practical field was provided.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.389-409
• /
• 2012

중개무역의 활성화와 기업의 해외현지법인의 증가로 인한 스위치선하증권의 사용이 빈번해지고 있으며 이와 더불어 이것의 불법적인 발행으로 인한 분쟁도 종종 발생하고 있다. 이러한 분쟁에 대해서는 몇 가지 중요한 판례가 있지만 이에 대한 연구는 전무하다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 스위치선하증권의 불법적 발행관행을 관련 판례를 통하여 조사하고 관련 당사자의 대책을 모색하고자 한다. 스위치선하증권에서는 원선하증권의 선적인, 수하인, 선적항. 하역항, 선적일 등이 변경 또는, 선적인에게 불리한 부기가 제거되거나 선하증권이 분할 또는 통합 발행된다. 여기서 운송인이 원선하증권을 회수하지 않은 상태에서 스위치선하증권을 발행하거나 선적일자, 선적항 또는 하역항을 허위로 기재하거나 불리한 부기가 삭제된 스위치선하증권을 발행하는 것은 불법적인 것으로 볼 수 있다. 스위치선하증권의 불법적 발행은 선적인과 은행 등 무역거래 당사자에게 위험 요인이 된다. 즉 선적인은 대금을 회수하지 못하였음에도 불구하고, 스위치선하증권에 의해서 화물이 제3자에게 인도되면 대금을 회수하지 못하여 손실이 발생한다. 화물의 담보권을 가지고 있는 신용장 개설은행 또는 매입은 행도 스위치선하증권의 불법적인 발행에 따라 그들의 담보권이 침해된다. 대부분의 경우 운송인은 중개무역상과 거래관계에 따라 어쩔 수 없이 원선하증권을 회수하지 않은 상태에서 스위치선하증권을 발행하고 있다. 하나의 화물에 대하여 두 세트 이상의 선하증권이 존재하는 것은 운송인에게 대단히 위험한 것이다.