• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제22권
• /
• pp.71-106
• /
• 2004

Todays, L/C transactions in international trade are governed by UCP 500 and eUCP. But UCP 500 and eUCP do not cover all legal problem of L/C transactions. Therefore choice of laws in international L/C transactions are occurred. U.S.A. has an enacted law (UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit) to govern L/C transaction. But other countries has no special enacted law to govern L/C transaction. The reason is that there are difference between legal attitude of U.S.A. and other countries. American law considers L/C as a special device made by merchants. Therefore U.S.A. applies UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit instead of general contract law. UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit includes provisions of warranties, remedies, and so on that UCP 500 and eUCP do not include. But the liabilities of the Issuing Bank on the wrongful dishonor in L/C transaction is very important legal problem. First, this study is to justify concepts of honor and dishonor, and sufficient conditions for dishonor of the issuing bank. in UCC. Second, this study is to examine closely the liabilities of the Issuing Bank on the wrongful dishonor in L/C transaction. Third, this study is suggest distinctive features on the Liabilities to wrongful dishonor of the issuing bank in UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit and our trader's matters to be attended to L/C transactions governed by UCC.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제22권
• /
• pp.137-171
• /
• 2004

Under Article 2 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 Revision. UCP), letter of credit means an arrangement whereby an issuing bank is to make a payment to a beneficiary, or is to accept and pay bills of exchange drawn by the beneficiary, or authorises another bank to effect such payment, or to accept and pay such bills of exchange, or to negotiate, against stipulated document(s), provided that the terms and conditions of the letter of credit are complied with. In letter of credit operations, all parties concerned deal with documents, and not with goods, services and/or other performances to which the documents may relate (UCP, Article 4). It is important to note that under UCP, if a letter of credit contains conditions without stating the document(s) to be presented in compliance therewith, banks will deem such conditions as not stated and will disregard them (Article 13 c). Section 5-108(g) of the Uniform Commercial Code also contains a similar provision. However on several occasions the Korean Supreme Court held that non-documentary conditions in letter of credit governed by UCP could be regarded as valid, although they were not desirable in the context of letter of credit transactions. The rationale underlying the decisions was that parties to the letter of credit transactions are free to determine the terms and conditions of the relevant letter of credit. After reviewing the relevant provisions of UCP, UCC, the International Standby Practices (ISP98) and the Supreme Court decisions of Korea, the author suggests that we classify conditions that do not require any documents (so called apparent non-documentary conditions) into two categories and treat them differently. There are apparent non-documentary conditions that are consistent with the nature of letter of credit and those which are inconsistent with the nature of letter of credit. In the first category there are two sub-categories, (i) those which are valid and (ii) those which are invalid and thus should be disregarded. In the second category there are two sub-categories, (i) those which are invalid and thus should be disregarded and (ii) those which are valid but deprive the instrument of the nature as letter of credit.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제21권
• /
• pp.99-127
• /
• 2003

Legal sources of fraud rule in documentary letter of credit, which have their origin in Sztejn Case can be traced to various rules or laws of international or domestic level ; URCG, URDG and ISP98 as ICC Rules, and UNCITRAL Convention as an international uniform law, and UCC as a domestic law and U.K. cases. Among them the combination of "material fraud" in UCC ${\S}5-109$ and the detailed list of the types of misconduct in UNCITRAL Convention may provide the best solution or standard in real application of the fraud rule in letter of credit transaction.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.515-536
• /
• 2000

This study analyzes the U.S. case law which challenges the legal conclusions of the district court with respect to the applicability, and effect, of the doctrine of waiver and estoppel in addition to the doctrine of documentary cure. The impliations are as follows. First, the documentary cure requirement can not be interpreted to mean early enough to allow the beneficiary to cure and represent the documents before the presentment deadline or expiry date of letter of credit. The mere fact that the presentment period expired before the completion of bank's review and notification process does not compel any conclusion about whether the examiner spent a reasonable amount of time examining the documents. Indeed, the reasonable time requirement does not imply that banks examine a presentation out of order or hurry a decision based upon particular needs or desires of a beneficiary. Secondly, even if the doctrine of waiver can apply to letter of credit governed by the strict compliance standard, a one-time acceptance of discrepant documents by a bank does not waive the bank's right to insist upon conforming documents in all subsequent letter of credit transactions between the bank and beneficiary. Revised UCC Article 5 is highly persuasive on this point: waiver of discrepancies by issuer or an applicant in one or more presentation does not waive similar discrepancies in a future presentation. Neither the issuer nor the beneficiary can reasonably rely upon honor over past waivers as a basis for concluding that a future defective presentation will justify honor.

• 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
• /
• 제16권
• /
• pp.7-34
• /
• 2001

This Study analyzes the fact that whether or not, the applicant, by failing to object promptly to the facial discrepancies of the presented documents and to return those documents to the issuing bank, has waived his right to sue for breach of the Application agreement based on the recent Korea-US Case law. Some commentators claim that an applicant has a duty to notify the issuing bank within a reasonable time after receiving the documents that they do not comply with the letter of credit requirements and to return those documents to the issuing bank, and also suggest that a failure to do so result in a waiver of discrepancies that operates as a matter of law. But such decisions make little sense in letter of credit transaction. Unless otherwise agreed, Applicant agreement does not require that the applicant notify the issuing bank of any facial discrepancies of the documents or return those documents. Moreover there is no support in the body of law, i.e., UCP 500 or the Revised UCC Article 5, for an automatic waiver or preclusion arising from the applicant's failure to object promptly. In addition, beyond the lack of authority to support an automatic waiver arising from the applicant's failure to object and return the documents, in a letter of credit transaction the issuing bank is the only party charged with the duty of scrutinizing documents. Therefore, if there are discrepancies, it is the bank that should have to seek an express waiver from the applicant ; the issuing bank should not avoid responsibility for failing to notice discrepancies because the applicant was slow to scrutinize the documents closely or because the applicant failed to inform the issuing bank of such discrepancies. Requiring that applicants inspect documents independently defeats the purpose of retaining the issuing bank, erodes the bank's responsibility to perform its role diligently, and may result in the bank avoiding liability despite negligent payment. If the bank wants to require an applicant to report discrepancies promptly, he may include a provision in the Application agreement limiting the time limit within which the applicant must give notice of facial discrepancies and return the documents. This approach will ensure the continued wide-spread use of documentary credit as a reliable payment mechanism.