• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.157-182
• /
• 2010

A counter-guarantee is an independent undertaking and it functions in the same way as an ordinary independent guarantee. However, the typical notion of independence which applies to the relationship between the guarantee and the underlying contract cannot be exactly transposed to the relationship between the counter-guarantee and the primary guarantee, because the primary guarantor bears its duties that derive from the mandate. In this respect, this study reviews, with some critics, a Korean appellate court's decision and argues that, in spite of the principle of independence between the counter-guarantee and the primary guarantee, the primary guarantor may not be entitled to reimbursement from the counter-guarantor, if it is objectively evident that the primary guarantor has failed to perform its duty of verifying compliance under the primary guarantor or if it is objectively evident that the primary guarantor knows that it is objectively evident that there was fraudulent calling by the beneficiary under the primary guarantee.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.45-64
• /
• 2024

In international transactions, a demand guarantee is commonly used as a so-called independent bank guarantee to protect against the other party's default under, or breach of, contract). However, there is a risk that the independence and the documentary character of the demand guarantee may be abused by the beneficiary of the guarantee, who may fall into the temptation to demand or call for payment under the guarantee by preparing documents that appear to constitute a complying demand for payment, even though the demand has no conceivable basis. In Korea, through case law, a legal rule has been developed to prevent such abusive calls for payment. This paper examines how such rule that prohibits abuse of rights is applying in the context of counter-guarantees. To this end, this paper first considers the concepts of a demand guarantee and a counter-guarantee and the basic legal principles applicable thereto. And then this paper considers abusive calls under the guarantees, that exceptionally works as grounds for refusal of payment by guarantors and counter-guarantors, further looking at some situations in which the calls amount to be abusive under counter-guarantees in particular.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.215-236
• /
• 2013

It is quite true that the more Korean contractors receive overseas contracts, the more they need guarantees. The top market for them is the Middle East countries, consisting of more than the half of the total amount awarded last year and the trend is increasing as well. The problem, however, is that employers in these countries are reluctant to use international rules for guarantee such as URDG or ISP98 and easily make unfair callings. However, Korean contractors(applicants), especially small and medium sized enterprises(SMEs) tend to hurriedly enter a contract without looking into its contents as well as guarantees. They do not realize the importance of the guarantees until they receive callings from the employers(beneficiaries). Being independent from the underlying contracts, guarantee is the equivalent to cash in that it usually does not require any proof of demand when calling and the guarantor should make a payment within usually 5 business days after the request. It is often observed these days that several Korean SMEs go bankrupt due to liquidity risks after receiving unfair callings from employers in the Middle East countries. In retrospect, some cases could be obviated if contractors were a little more careful in checking the contents of a guarantee at the time of concluding a contract. For example, there is one case where the underlying contract includes a reduction clause in the Advance Payment bond and the guarantee does not have that clause. In the end, the Korean contractor had to take the whole burden of the bond amount though it had finished 81% of the project. Nobody could argue that contractors should take a full responsibility if they fail in their obligations. However, the employer's wrongful callings need to be prevented in the first place, if possible. As there shouldn't be a case where one party is at a disadvantage against the other like the case mentioned above, useful insight is being sought to minimize unfair calling risks for the benefit of the applicant. First, the applicant should carefully look into every detail of the potential guarantee before signing a contract, heeding especially that there is a reduction clause in the AP bond. Second, the governing principles for guarantee should be the ones that are internally used such as URDG758 that is objective in terms of callings given that, for example, it specifies that the requirement for a supporting statement when making a demand is a default rule. It is also recommended that the form of guarantees be the standard demand guarantee. Third, parties involved in issuing guarantees are advised to understand international rules for guarantee like URDG758 and ISP98 and to play a key role in guiding SME contractors in Korea so that they can protect themselves from possible wrongful callings, particularly from employers in the Middle East countries. I hope this study would give a wake-up call for Korean SMEs wishing to do business in the Middle East countries and remind them of the importance of guarantee itself and its governing principles.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.275-295
• /
• 2011

Any attempt which requires banks to consider non-documentary conditions would destroy autonomy principle and increase the risks of the bank in L/C transactions. Therefore, non-documentary conditions are disregarded in the letter of credit. This provision was first introduced in UCP500, but later, ICC Position Paper No.3 added that if L/C requires documents related to non-documentary conditions, it cannot be disregarded. While the language in UCP600 is basically the same as that in UCP500, there is a difference between the two in that the former disregards the documents related to non-documentary conditions even if they are required by L/C. However, it should be remembered that international standard banking practice does not disregard all of non-documentary conditions. It recognizes the validity of some non-documentary conditions which it is not feasible to change into documentary conditions. That is, such non-documentary conditions as can be determined from an index specified in the guarantee or identified from the issuing bank's own records or their normal operations are recognized as valid in legal cases. ISP98 and UR00758 do not consider these as non-documentary conditions. The applicant should be cautious not to include non-documentary conditions in their applications.