• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Grassland Science Conference
• /
• 1998.04a
• /
• pp.9-21
• /
• 1998

IMF(국제통화기금)체제 하에서는 우리나라 경제의 모든 분야가 정도의 차이는 있으나 어려움을 겪고 있다. 외환부족과 환율상승으로 빚어진 금융위기가 UR 협상의 파고보다 더 거칠게 산업전반에 영향이 미치고 있으며, IMF협정(1997. 12. 3)이후인 지난해 12월에는 외환사정으로 한때 국내 사료업체들이 원료수입을 위한 연지급 수입신용장(Usance L/C)을 개설하지 못하여 사료원료 수입이 전면 중단되고, 환율상승으로 사료가격이 이미 36%나 인상된 바 있다.(중략)

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.433-456
• /
• 2012

The confirming bank undertakes to make payment to the beneficiary, provided that a complying presentation is made and complies with its confirmation. In case L/C fraud is evident, though, the confirming bank as well as the issuing bank does not have the obligation to make payment. That is, the confirming bank does not take the risks involving documentary fraud. The confirming bank cannot exercise the right to recourse toward the beneficiary or the nominated bank when the issuing bank finds the discrepancies which the confirming bank has not noticed. This is because under UCP600, the issuing bank or the confirming bank cannot refuse to make payment with the cause of documentary discrepancy after 5 banking days following the presentation of documents. Even if the issuing bank accepts the discrepant documents following the confirming bank's request to do so, the confirming bank does not have the responsibility for the confirmation. When under Usance Negotiation Credit, the confirming bank acts as the nominated bank, the confirming bank should make payment in no time if the beneficiary presents complying documents. Therefore, unless the confirming bank intends to make immediate payment, they should consider using Deferred Payment or Acceptance L/C in Usance Credit. It is also safer for the beneficiary to have the reimbursing bank's undertaking to the reimbursement than just have confirmation of the credit because in the latter case they may not have full payment due to disputes regarding discrepancies of the documents even if they have confirmation of the credit.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• 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.