• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.169-198
• /
• 2009

This paper sees some legal phases of the forfaiting transactions performed by using bills of exchange (drafts) or promissory notes. It focuses on the issues of the endorsement without recourse and the aval under the Korean statute for such negotiable instruments which is enacted by succeeding to the Convention Providing a Uniform Law For Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Geneva, 1930) of the League of Nations. This paper purposes to give basic legal guides for forfaiting participants in order for them to be able to prevent and solve some problems caused by lack of understanding for relevant rules of law. Forfaiting is a useful technic as it provides financing for international export businesses by enabling forfaiters to discount future payment obligations on non-recourse basis. It gives benefits to exporters by removing political, transfer and commercial risks of importers or their country. Also it protects exporters from the risks of the increase of interest rates and the fluctuation of exchange rate as well. In traditionally normal forfaiting transactions, exporter of goods generally takes promissory notes or accepted drafts from importers in payment for the price of goods. Further, when the exporter is not comfortable with the importer's credit or is not confident whether the importer will pay the accepted drafts or the promissory notes as they come due, the exporter nomally requires the importer to make the importer's bank (avalizer or guarantor) add an aval, which is made by the written expression of intention, the words of "per aval", and the guarantor's signature on the drafts or promissory notes. The exporter endorses without recourse to transfer the drafts or the promissory notes to the forfaiter, typically a bank, who purchases the drafts or the promissory notes without recourse.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.239-259
• /
• 2016

An increasing number of transactions in the bilateral trade between Korea and China rely on collection and remittance, resulting in an increase in exporters' demand for trade financing. Therefore, there is a need to vitalize forfaiting transactions using drafts or promissory notes, which are based on the collections. In the forfaiting transactions, exporters transfer a payment claim to forfaiters on a non-recourse basis through a without recourse endorsement. However, forfaiters do not know importers' creditworthiness and ability to repay drafts or promissory notes; thus, they need a bank aval as a means of credit support. In forfaiting using aval, the drafts or promissory notes are transferred internationally. However, there is no internationally unified law that regulates drafts and promissory notes, and the governing laws related to such drafts and promissory notes do not accept the "principle of party autonomy." Therefore, there is no other choice but to apply the laws of a certain country, in the event of any dispute relating to such drafts or promissory notes. This paper examined forfaiting using aval from the comparative law perspective, focusing on the "Law of China on Negotiable Instruments." The results of this study may to provide businesses involved in international trade with practical guidance and assistance when using forfaiting with aval, especially in trade with China.