• 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 Area Studies Review
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.277-295
• /
• 2008

Insurable value agreed by the parties shall be presumed specified at the time of the accident. It is nevertheless provided that where agreed value considerably exceeds certain amount evaluated at the time of insured accident, the amount shall be insurable value. It casts doubt on what constitutes such an excess in valuation in marine insurance. Because of the relatively short periods and less volatile economies, maritime insurance, with the statutory insurance value, has deemed insurable value conclusive. In other ways, the provision of default rule substitutes the amount evaluated at the time of insured accident for statutory insurance value. However, over-valuation of agreed value determined by the comparison of statutory insurance value leads to non sequitur in valued policy. Maritime insurance, in the case of over-valuation of agreed value, construes certain amount evaluated at the time of insured accident as insurable value. Accordingly, beyond the application of statutory insurance value, the amount should be considered for over-valuation of agreed value.