• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.25-50
• /
• 2018

It is an undeniable fact that the counter-guarantees are always exposed to wrongful or fraudulent demands for payment due to its institutional hallmarks and simplicity. Generally counter-guarantees are payable by presenting a written statement indicating that the local guarantor was in receipt of the beneficiary's statement that the principal was in breach of the underlying contract without any proof of any default. No proof of actual payment of guarantee is required. These matters may lead to numerous disputes or conflicts between the parties concerned. These problems raise may legal issues such as a guarantor(or a counter-guarantor)'s dishonor, the wrongful or fraudulent demands for payment, and the fraudulent conspiracy or the acquiescence of the local guarantor in the course of the procedural demand for payment. On the other hand, the guarantor's dishonor or an injunction are sometimes misused as dispute resolution method between parties involved. Therefore, this research analyzed the guarantor's wrongful dishonor and related issues such as an injunction, fraud exception, and others under the counter-guarantee regime focusing on the relevant cases. This paper also suggested practical implications and countermeasures from a business point of view.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.87-103
• /
• 2008

Two kinds of security devices such as independent guarantees and standby letters of credit have been widely used in the international transactions. These devices design to protect one of the parties from a breach by its counter-party. Main uses of these guarantees and standby letters of credit are as follows : bid guarantee, performance guarantee, advance payment guarantee, payment guarantee, retention guarantee, etc. The standby letters of credit were first invented in the U.S.A. and have been widely used in the international and domestic contracts in the U.S.A. But the practical use of these credits is very unsatisfactory in Korea. The purpose of this study is to serve the increase of practical use of the standby letters of credit in Korea through the comparison study on the practical use of the credits between Korea and the U.S.A. Both devices are very similar in function, but they are very different in forms. The one has the form of letter of credits but the other has the form of guarantee. The letter of credit has the stability of governing rule, the legal certainty, and the preference in the field of the trade community comparing to the guarantee. I recommend to use standby letter of credit instead of bank guarantee in international transactions because of the merits of the credit aforesaid.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.203-223
• /
• 2005

Many international transactions involve the use of security devices, commonly referred to as "guarantees", "bonds", or "standby credits", designed to protect one of the parties from a breach by its counter-party. These security mechanisms may be provided by banks, insurance companies, specialized surety companies, or other financial service firms. Although some legal systems distinguish between "guarantees", "bonds", and "indemnities", these terms are often used as synonyms in the everyday language of international traders. It may therefore be necessary to examine the particular characteristics and nature of the guarantee obligation in order to properly classify the guarantee. Two main categories of guarantee are demand and suretyship. Under a demand guarantee, the guarantor must pay on first demand by the beneficiary. The beneficiary only has to demand payment under the guarantee - there is no need to prove that the principal has actually defaulted on a contractual obligation. Under a suretyship or conditional guarantee, the obligation of the guarantor is triggered by the actual default or contractual breach of the principal, as evidenced in a document such as a court judgement or arbitral award against the principal. Guarantees have been widely used in the international business transactions. Main uses of guarantees are as follows : Performance Bonds/Guarantees, Bid(or Tender) Bonds/Guarantees, Advance Payment or Repayment Bonds/Guarantees, Retention Bonds/Guarantees, Maintenance(or Warranty) Bonds/Guarantees etc.

• The Journal of Small Business Innovation
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.1-16
• /
• 2016

Korean government had used public 'credit guarantee schemes' (CGS) as a counter-cyclical measure. However, it is still controversial about the effectiveness of policy financing on the SMEs. Criticism on policy financing involves the argument that supporting enterprises hampers competition and innovation of SMEs by increasing their dependence on the government and delays the exit of marginal firms. In this paper, we investigate how to effectively build up the rationale of running public CGSs. At the same time, we propose the ways to coexist of public credit guarantee and market-based private finance system for SMEs. First, CGS, as a counter-cyclical function, must coexist with the private financial system by compensating the market failure caused by pro-cyclical behavior of the private financial market. Second, CGS has the comparative advantages, compared to both the interest rate policy of the central bank and fiscal policy of the government. The credit guarantee is the symptomatic treatment that could revitalize the economy shortly by providing liquidity. Also, knowing that CGS is provided based on the leverage ratio defined by outstanding guarantee divided by capital fund, public 'credit guarantee' (CG) has an advantage that is free from the risk of government deficit. Third, the reason for existence of the CGS should be founded in supporting services for SMEs, available only in a public sector that is difficult to expect from private banks. In this regard, it is desirable to strengthen the publicness of credit guarantee over the support for start-ups, growing companies, the improvement of productivity, increase of exports, a long-term investment in facilities, the employment-creating businesses, and innovative enterprises.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.263-283
• /
• 2011

There are two typical international rules in issuing guarantee for obligations of party which is responsible to provide some duties such as services, construction, plants, loan repayment, etc. The two internationally recognized rules are currently ISP98 and URDG758. ISP98 was firstly introduced in 1998 for American banks to issue standby letter of credit domestic and overseas for the area where UCP does not cover. URDG was introduced first in 1991 in the name of URDG458 but it has not been widely used and therefore new URDG named URDG758 came out in 2010 to accommodate more standard guarantee practice. At the face of these two prevailing international rules, the users are sometimes confused which rule would be more suitable for their individual transaction. This led us to conduct a comparative analysis on these two rules. Our study suggests that URDG758 is more adequate for construction, ship-building and plants-supply obligations whilst ISP98 is for financial obligations. Also attentions are required when issues such as counter guarantee, governing rule, presentation period, document examination period and default statement exist. This is because ISP98 and URDG758 have different view points.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2011

The main issue in Korean debates over genetically modified (GM) foods have been government's responsibility to guarantee consumers' right-to-know and make informed choice. Counter-experts' critique over the current regulatory processes based upon substantial equivalence have not been widely publicized. Through interviews and textual analysis, this paper explored three groups' performances in Korean GM food controversies-regulatory scientists, civil society organizations, and counter-experts. Analytic focus was made upon how each of the groups interact with current GM food regulations. While making conflicts with regulatory scientists and their 'discourse of compliance with global standards,' counter-experts were excluded from regulatory processes. This article suggests that the processes and contexts in which counter-experts failed to form strong alliance with other groups need to be examined in order to further understand the specific contours of Korean GM food controversies.

• Journal of Korea Multimedia Society
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.95-105
• /
• 2021

In the case of laptops and tablet PC's that replace desktop, it uses the Windows operating system to provide various functions depending on operating system dependency, the Windows operating system does not support real-time processing because it uses multi-level feedback queue scheduling that extends round-robin scheduling. Also, since the initial value of Local APIC Counter can not be obtained from the Windows 8, the real-time processing function provided through the existing RTiK does not work. In this paper, we calculate Local APIC Counter value by using MSR_FSB_FREQ register to support real-time processing function on tablet PC's. We designed and implemented RTiK+, which provides real-time processing function to guarantee the periodicity by calculating the operation time of accurate timer. In order to verify and evaluate the performance of the implemented the RTiK+, the period was measured by using the Read Time-Stamp Counter(RDTSC) instruction and it was confirmed that it operates normally at 1ms and 0.1ms period.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.231-250
• /
• 2016

The study attempts to consider L/G(Letter of Guarantee) in a different angle, which is internationally used as a way of commercial customs and practices in a case when the consignee wants to receive the goods without the original Bill of Lading, Thus, this study focuses more on verifying the usage of L/G in Mixed Payment System and the range of guarantee responsibility by an issuing bank through case analysis. This case uses a mixed payment method of L/C(Letter of Credit) and T/T(Telegraphic Transfer) in the transaction of goods. The issuing bank of L/C issues L/G with the amount of L/C which is the same as the amount as C/I(Commercial Invoice). However the carrier deliver all goods laden under both L/C and T/T payment with the production of L/G. In this case, because the buyer is unable to pay, the seller makes a claim for damages to the carrier that the carrier delivers the goods to the buyer against L/G. Finally, the judge gives a decision that the issuing bank of L/G should pay the whole amount of the goods. In this case, the main issue of the dispute is the range of guarantee responsibility by the issuing bank of L/G. As a result of the case analysis, the study suggests two counter strategies for smooth utilization in international trade environment. First, in the case of mixed payment system, a seller should issue a commercial invoice separately based on the amount of each settlement plan in order to clarify the liability of guarantee. Second, banks should establish a new form for L/G including a sentence for verifying liabilities of the bank's side in the current form of L/G.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2010

Since the 1970s, international construction employers have commonly requested first demand guarantees upon their contractors as a form of security for due performance of their works. Contractors prefer the greater protection offered by more traditional forms of security requiring presentation of an arbitral award or other evidence of the caller's entitlement to compensation. Many contractors nonetheless feel that they have no alternative but to provide these unconditional guarantees in order to compete. However, these unconditional first demand guarantees are controversial and have given rise to numerous disputes both in arbitration and litigation. Disputes arising from first demand guarantees can be broken down into a) applications to prevent a perceived fraudulent or otherwise unfair or improper calling of a guarantee, b) claims arising from such abusive calls and c) claims relating to the consequences of such calls even if the call itself may not be abusive as such. The contractors should carefully assess the risk of an abusive call being made bearing in mind the difficulties he may face in seeking to prevent such a call. He should also bear in mind the difficulties, delays and cost he is likely to encounter in seeking to recover any monies wrongfully called. One option would be to provide that the call can only be made once and to the extent that the employer's damages have been assessed or even incurred or even for the default to have been established by an arbitral tribunal or court. Another option would be to provide that any call be accompanied by a decision of a competent and impartial third party stating that the contractor is in breach. For example, such a requirement could be incorporated into a construction contract based on the FIDIC Conditions by submitting this decision to a Dispute Adjudication Board. Another option would be to provide for the "ICC Counter-Guarantee Scheme". In sum, there would appear to be room for compromise between the employer and the contractor in respect of first demand guarantees by conditioning the entitlement to call such guarantees to the determination of a competent and impartial third party.