• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.173-194
• /
• 2021

This study aims to derive precaution points for issuing banks in refusing payment under L/C through literature review and examination of court cases and official opinions of ICC Banking Commission with regard to the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 that stipulates obligations of issuing banks in refusing payment. If the issuing bank fails to act in accordance with this article, it shall be precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation. Therefore, it is crucial that issuing banks should be well informed of this article. When discrepant documents are presented, however, issuing banks seldom refuse payment because, in most cases, the applicants waive the discrepancies. For this reason, issuing banks have few chances to deal with payment refusal in practice and thus they occasionally end up failing to observe the provisions of the article. Such court cases include Kookmin Bank and Korean Exchange Bank (currently Hana Bank) that failed to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice losing the lawsuits. It should be noted that if issuing banks disregard the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 and thus fail to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice, they may face fatal situations in which they must make payment against discrepant documents.

• East Asian Journal of Business Economics (EAJBE)
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.15-28
• /
• 2021

Purpose -In the credit transaction, the issuing bank must examine the documents to pay the credit amount. In order to smoothly execute the credit transaction, document review is a key element, so the 5th revised credit unification rule specifically defines the document review procedure. Research design, data, and methodology - The document review procedure specified in the UCP Rules can be largely divided into the document review period and the rejection procedure for inconsistent documents. First of all, confusion was caused by the ambiguous regulation.. Result - With regard to the document review period, in the actual credit transaction, the issuing bank often negotiates with the issuing client about the waiver of the document inconsistency. Next, in the process of notifying the rejection of inconsistent documents, the issuing bank shall send the rejection notice. Conclusion - This study suggests that the requirement to list all inconsistencies makes it impossible for the issuing bank to further notify the refusal, thereby limiting the right to defend against inconsistencies not listed in the first refusal notice and consequently having the effect of matching them. In addition, the issuing bank's rejection notice is closely related to the beneficiary's exercise of the right to replenish documents.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.205-225
• /
• 2017

The study attempts to verify the case related to the notice of payment refusal by issuing bank regarding discrepancy in transport document under L/C(Letter of Credit) transaction. Considering the high portion of trade between Korea and China, Korean companies and banks in L/C transaction should be careful about many unpredictable situations. The case of this study is that Chinese seller(beneficiary) initiated a civil suit against Industrial Bank of Korea to Chinese court and Chinese courts in the first and second trials judged that the notice of payment refusal by Industrial bank of Korea doesn't satisfy Article 16, (c) (ii) (iii) in UCP 600. However, Industrial Bank of Korea implements the judgement even though the judgement is highly biased to Chinese seller. Considering the judgement by Chinese courts, the study suggests some countermeasures to Korean companies and banks which opened L/C. First, the issuing bank should describe the contents of discrepancy specifically based on Article 16, (c) in UCP 600. Second, it is necessary to insert a clause regarding governing law in the L/C contract like sales contract. Third, considering the biased judgement by Chinese court and difficulty in execution of foreign judgement in China, it is recommended to using arbitration as a method of dispute resolution such as ICLOCA and DOCDEX Rules which are international system operated by international instruments because it has legal effects to parties in L/C contracts if the issuing bank inserts arbitration clause in L/C.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.79-103
• /
• 2014

In light of increasing international trade in recent years, international arbitration has been more widely used by international parties to resolve their conflicts. Thus, the need for reliable and effective enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has amplified. To facilitate the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the New York Convention lists grounds for the refusal of recognition and enforcement in Article V. This paper examines prominent U.S. case law on Article V(1)(b), which is put in place to ensure that arbitration proceedings are conducted properly in accordance with due process requirements: proper notice to parties and an opportunity to a fundamentally fair hearing. This examination of case law conveys that U.S. courts refuse to enforce foreign arbitral awards pursuant to Article V(1)(b) only when due process rights of the party against whom the award is to be enforced are clearly violated by the arbitral tribunal. This paper also reveals that U.S. courts mainly defer to arbitral tribunals' discretion, especially as to evidentiary matters. Therefore, it is predicted that U.S. courts will likely continue to narrowly construe the grounds in Article V to facilitate reliable and effective enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the U.S.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.119-139
• /
• 2012

In the case of Banque Paribas V. Banco Santander in England for the reimbursement request of deferred payment credit by the nominated bank, the L/C-issuing bank refused to pay the proceeds at maturity because of a fraudulent transaction. The reason of refusal was that the nominated bank, Banco Santander, had no right of payment in deferred credit before its maturity if it made payment of proceeds without notice to the issuing bank, that is, payment not based upon a credit transaction but on its own account. However, in the case of ADIB V. Fortis Bank in America, the New York court made the decision that the deferred payment bank could not refuse to reimburse to the nominated bank, Fortis Bank, because of fraud. Its decision was based on the UCP600. We have analyzed and investigated the above two cases-one was an English court's decision and the other an American's. The English court's decision was made under UCP500, but the American court's was made under UCP600, which was revised in 2007. As a result, we can expect that from now on in deferred payment credit transactions, the power of the nominated bank will be greater than before, but the issuing bank will bear the risk of the beneficiary's fraud, so the issuing bank will be hesitant to issue deferred payment credit. Notwithstanding, we thought that the New York court decision would come into effect in the activation of deferred payment credit in practical trade transactions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.65-88
• /
• 2012

Even though there are some discrepancies in detail with the legal characteristic of the issuing bank's notice to the beneficiary of opening of the letter of credit, article 25 of "the Korean Private International Act(hereunder, 'KPIA')" can be applied to the legal relation between the issuing bank and the beneficiary or the negotiating bank. According to article 26 of the KPIA, if there is no agreement between the issuing bank and its opponent party as to the governing law issues, a state's law which has the closest relationship with the subject case may be applied. In the latter case, given the facts that the issuing bank plays important roles in every phasis of the sale of goods by the letter of credit, a law of place where the issuing bank's business premises is situated(the $lex$ $situs$) can be the applicable law. Meanwhile, "the Korean Supreme Court(hereunder 'KSC')" held that the beneficiary or the negotiating bank can claim any damages arising due to the refusal or deferred payment of the issuing bank, and the law which governs the above mentioned situation is the same law that is applicable to the legal relation between the issuing bank and the beneficiary or the negotiating bank. The main reason of the KSC's ruling is that the nature of the legitimate interest rate which is stated in article 3 of "the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition etc. of Legal Proceeding(hereunder 'ASCELP')" is substantial matters, not procedural. Taking into account, however, that the main object of ASCELP lies in expedition of legal proceeding, prompt realization of people's rights and duties, and prevention of delayed legal proceeding, it is recommendable that ASCELP, instead of the law applicable to the legal relation between the issuing bank and the beneficiary or the negotiating bank, should be applied to the cases in which the malicious debtor's only and main purpose is delaying the legal proceedings. On the other hand, even if the issuing bank's duty of examination of the documents which were tendered by the beneficiary or the negotiating bank is restricted to the formality and strict conformity of the documents and not the substantiality of the documents, the issuing bank still has to examine the documents with due diligence that is required to the banks whose main business is sales of documents, not the real goods. In this regard, under the circumstances where the document lacked the regularity and/or the formality on its face because of the forgery of the document and where it was expected that an ordinary banker might have easily found any faults with the document, the issuing bank must compensate any parties for damages when it pays money without due diligence as a banker who engaged in the sales of documents.