• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.107-126
• /
• 2016

This study is to review "on board notation" on a bill of lading under letter of credit transactions. A bill of lading is a type of document that is used to acknowledge the receipt of a shipment of goods. However, UCP 600Article 20 (a)(ii) requires the bill of lading to indicate that the goods have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit by pre-printed wording, or an on board notation indicating the date on which the goods have been shipped on board. The shipped on board statement should relate to loading on board the named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit. But it doesn't seem that the on board notation clause in the UCP 600 reflect current shipping practice fully because of the various kinds of on board notation and the confusion surrounding their use. There is a need to understand accurately the meanings and requirements of "on board notation" under UCP 600 and the related regulations. So, This paper will be studied the requirements and indication method of "on board notation" on the bill of lading and presented the practical implications under the bill of lading transactions. This study was based on documentary research including preceding research.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제18권
• /
• pp.65-104
• /
• 2002

With the current evolution from paper to electronic records the documentary credit market has been looking to ICC to provide guidance in this transition. To allow bankers and traders to familiarize themselves with this trend, eUCP has come into force from April 1st 2002. The eUCP provides definitions to allow current UCP terminology to accommodate the presentation of the equivalent of paper documents electronically and to provide necessary rules to allow the UCP and eUCP to work together. It is important to understand that many of the Articles of the UCP are not impacted by the presentation of electronic equivalent of paper documents and do not require any changes to accommodate electronic presentation. When read together the UCP and the eUCP will be broad enough to allow for developing practice in this area. The eUCP is not a revision of the UCP. The UCP will continue to provide the industry with rules for paper letters of credit in conjunction with the eUCP. This study comments that some characteristics of the eUCP have unique properties, such as juncture, envelope, homotheticity functions, and some applicable interpretations including abstraction of letter of credit, notice of completeness, notice of discrepancies and corruption of electronic records.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제48권
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2010

In letter of credit arrangements, the issuing bank nominate a reimbursing bank which serves as a source of funds payment to the beneficiary. The reimbursing bank could be 3rd party bank or the issuing bank itself. In view of working capital requirements, most beneficiary want to get export proceeds in advance through nominated banks and therefore letter of credit usually permit the beneficiary to negotiate drafts, accompanied by required documents, to nominated bank. If the credit is available with the nominated bank, there must be a reimbursement instruction in the credit, because in this method of availability the issuing bank is obliged to reimburse the nominated bank if that bank acts on its nomination There are legal relationship among issuing bank, nominated bank and reimbursing bank with regard to reimbursement activities. Related rules are UCP and URR and UCC (in case of USA). Korean exporters and bankers do not appear to know well the role of reimbursement and usage. 3 cases (court case + ICC Opinion + bad practices) were employed to study the reimbursement mechanism and suggest better usages. The beneficiary is strongly recommended to know the benefit of reimbursement claim from independent reimbursing bank. The benefits include speed payment (thereby saving finance costs) and safe funds (in case of stop payment by the issuing bank right after the proceeds are reimbursed). And further the beneficiary banks (being nominated or claim banks) are also recommended to take advantage of the 3rd party reimbursement in view of the cases illustrated.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2009

This paper aims at assessing reasonableness for restraining the independence principle in the operation of documentary credit in case of the illegality appeared in the underlying transactions. It has been a major rule under the independence principle to keep the credit operation free from the defences made by the issuing bank and/or credit applicant with a view to prevent the payment as specified under the credit. And also, it is generally accepted in the international commercial community to examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the document alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. Even though these two essences are major rules in the credit operation, if a presentation is made with the documents forged or materially fraudulent, the issuing bank can refuse to pay the documents in respect of fraud rule based on fraud exception for which a court of appropriate jurisdiction would enjoin such honour. Now we have newly come to another situation to determine whether or not we have to apply the same as fraud rule which is applicable to the illegality in the underlying contract under the new conception of illegality principle based on illegality exception. English Commercial Court handled the illegality case under the case of Mahonia Ltd., v. JP Morgan Chase Bank in 2003 and Justice Colman decided that issuing bank can rely on illegality affecting a letter of credit as an excuse for failure to pay. This judgement brought about the acceptance of illegality principle based on illegality exception as a defence to payment under a letter of credit as far as the illegality concerned in the underlying transactions. It is noticeable that this case will affect our international commercial community more to rely on the illegality in the underlying transactions as a good issue to stop payment for the issuing bank in the L/C operation.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제42권5호
• /
• pp.213-232
• /
• 2017

본 연구는 현재 시행되고 있는 BPO에 대해 제도적 차원에서 주요 쟁점으로 중심으로 신용장 제도와 비교하여 고찰하였다. BPO는 은행간의 약정이기 때문에 지급의무의 이행, 확인, 양도 등에 있어서 신용장제도와 차이를 보이며, 또한 유의해야 할 점이다. BPO은 기본적으로 기능 면에서 신용장과 유사하지만, 별개의 독립적인 제도로 운용되며 정보기술과 데이터를 기반으로 한다. 신용장을 포함한 전통적인 제도 보다는 더 효율적이며 비용 효과적이다. 따라서 전통적인 제도에 대한 전자적 대안으로 보여진다. 본 연구는 선행 연구를 중심으로 이미 발표된 BPO 관련 연구와 자료 등을 통하여 문헌 연구하였다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.213-233
• /
• 2005

A letter of credit is the best settlement among various means of payments until now. A letter of credit plays very important roles in rational and smooth international trade. Letter of credit is usually used in international trade. But many people have to prepare a lot of transport documents in order to transact with L/C. Therefore, the transactions will be happened to delay in international trade very often. Owing to the EDI, international trade will be materialized with electronic business of E-commerce. If we transact with the electronic documents, it will be reduced the time very much in international trade. Generally speaking, all relating parties transact with L/C complying with UCP, but there are no ruling articles about electronic documents in UCP. If all parties want to transact with electronic documents in global business, UCP has to contain the electronic provisions. So, ICC published eUCP on 2002. The purpose of the study was to analyze original electronic papers and provisions through foreign precedents in UCP and eUCP. If we want to exchange the electronic document, the UCP provisions about electronic documents would be revised as follows: UCP provision 20(b) would be revised, “Unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, banks have to accept as an original documents, a documents produced or appearing to have been produced: (i)by reprographic, automated or computerized systems (ii)as carbon copies,; provided that it is marked as original and, where necessary, appears to be signed. A document may be signed by handwriting, by facsimile signature, by perforated signature by symbol, or by any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication."

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제9권
• /
• pp.153-186
• /
• 1996

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권4호
• /
• pp.241-265
• /
• 2013

은행은 오직 서류만을 기초로, 서류가 문면상 일치하는 제시인지 여부를 심사하여야 하며, 물품이나 기초거래 또는 기타 거래관련 사항들을 심사할 필요는 없다. 은행은 제시서류의 형식 충분성 정확성 진정성 위조 여부 또는 법적효력에 대하여 어떠한 의무나 책임도 지지 아니한다. 본 논문의 연구 목적은 신용장거래에서 은행의 서류 심사에 관하여 고찰하는바, 특히 국제상업회의소(ICC)가 제정한 신용장통일규칙(Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credit, 2007 Revision, ICC Publication No.600)과 국제표준은행관행(International Standard Banking Practice, ISBP Publication No.745), Banking Committee의 견해 및 영국의 판례를 중심으로 연구를 진행하였다. 그동안 신용장에 대하여는 그 중요성만큼이나 다양한 분야에서 연구가 진행되어 왔으며, 특히 은행의 서류심사 기준과 요건, 서류심사표준과 불일치서류 제시에 따른 효과, 사기의 문제 및 수익자의 일치하는 제시에 따른 개설은행의 의무 등 다수의 논문이 발표되었다. 선행연구와의 차별성에 관하여, 본 논문은 은행의 서류심사 시 고려사항과 서류불일치에 따른 은행의 조치를 중심으로 UCP600 규정(UCP500과의 비교)의 해석은 물론 2013년 발행된 ISBP745와 다수의 외국판례를 분석 고찰함으로써 실무당사자들에게 필요한 사전지식과 정보를 제공하는데 의의를 두었다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.429-460
• /
• 1999

The letter of credit is quintessentially international. In the absence of international legal system, a private system based on banking practices has evolved, commanding the adherence of the international letter of credit community and providing the foundation of th reputation of this instrument. To maintain this international system, it is vital that international standard banking practice should not be subject to local interpretations that misconstrue or distort it. The UCP is a formulation of international standard banking practice. It is neither positive law nor a "contract term" in any traditional sense and its interpretation must be consonant with its character as a living repositary of international understanding in this field. As a result, the interpretation and application of specific articles of the UCP must be consistent with its evolving character and history and with the principles upon which sound letter of credit practice is predicated. This study, especially, focuses on article 13 and article 14 of the UCP500. Article 13(b) of UCP500 stipulates that banks will have a reasonable time, not to exceed seven days, to examine documents to determine whether they comply facially with the terms of the credit. The seven-day provision is not designed as a safe harbor, because the rule requires the issuer to act within a reasonable time. But, by virtue of the deletion of the preclusion rule in the document examination article in UCP500, however, seven days may evolve as something of a safe harbor, especially for banks that engage in strategic behavior. True, under UCP500 banks are supposed to examine documents within a reasonable time, but there are no consequences in UCP500 for a bank's violation of that duty. It is only in the next provision. Courts might read the preclusion more broadly than the literal reading mentioned here or might fashion a common-law preclusion rule that does not require a showing of detriment. Absent that kind of development, the change in the preclusion rule could have adverse effects on the beneficiary. The penalty, strict estoppel or strict preclusion, under UCP500 and 95UCC differs from the classic estoppel. The classic estoppel rule requires a beneficiary to show three elements. 1. conduct on the part of the issuer that leads the beneficiary to believe that nonconforming documents do conform; 2. reasonable reliance by the beneficiary; and 3. detriment from that reliance. But stict preclusion rule needs not detrimental reliance. This strict estoppel rule is quite strict, and some see it as a fitting pro-beneficiary rule to counterbalance the usually pro-issuer rule of strict compliance.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.581-603
• /
• 2000

Beneficiary must present all documents stipulated in the Credit. If the documents conform in all respects with the terms and conditions of the Credit, beneficiary has a right to payment from an issuing or confirming bank. And banks must examine all documents presented by beneficiary for taking up the documents. If the documents appear on their face not to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit, banks may refuse to take up the documents. But standard for compliant documents with the terms and conditions of the Credit in the UCP or Section 5 of UCC is unclear. Because UCP Article 13(a) provides merely that banks must examine all documents stipulated in the Credit ${\cdots}$ to ascertain whether or not they appear, on their face, to be compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit. ${\cdots}$ Documents which appear on their face to be inconsistent with one another will be considered as not appearing on their face to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit. Also UCC Section 5-108(a) provides merely that. ${\cdots}$ an issuer shall honor a presentation that, ${\cdots}$ appears on its face strictly to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. All problems are not resolve with easy by these regulations. Accordingly, I examined requirements for compliant documents with the terms and conditions of the Credit on the basis of the UCP and cases. To analyse this, I divided into three requirements ; (1) Completeness, (2) Regularity, (3) Linkage.