• 정보학연구
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.51-67
• /
• 2002

무역거래에서 통신수단의 급격한 발달로 서류가 상대방에게 전달되는 과정에서 서류상의 내용은 전자문서교환으로 즉시 전달될 수 있으나 문서의 원본은 그렇지 못한 실정이므로 각종 전파나 전자매체로 전달되어오는 문서의 진위를 가려내는 것이 가장 큰 문제로 지적되고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는UCP 500의 규정을 근거로 정보 및 전자매체하의 신용장거래에서 원본과 사본에 대한 은행의 인정 및 판단기준 및 이와 관련된 사례 및 실무상의 유의점을 구체적으로 제시함으로써 신용장거래에서 은행이 서류를 심사할 때 무엇이 원본이고 무엇이 사본 서류인지에 대한 명백한 근거를 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.277-314
• /
• 2006

This article aims at analysing the reality of banks' liability resulting from the breach of contract on its part to keep the business secrecy with the supplier in the transferable credit, focusing on a English decision, Jackson v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] UKHL 3. In this case, the applicant, 'Econ', had purchased various varieties of pre-packed dog chews in bulk through 'Sam'(lst beneficiary) from 'PPLtd'(2nd beneficiary) in Thailand, using a transferable letter of credit issued by 'RBank'. 'Sam' charged a tremendous amount of mark-up on each transaction and it had not been disclosed to 'Econ', although the identity of 'PPLtd' was revealed to 'Econ' by various documents. However, 'RBank' made an unfortunate error to send an completion statement and other documents including 'PPLtd.'s invoice to 'Econ' instead of to 'Sam'. The effect of the Bank's error was to reveal to 'Econ' the substantial profit that 'Sam' was making on these transactions. CEO of 'Econ' was furious and, as a result, decided to cut 'Sam' out of its importing system and terminated their relationship. 'Sam' sued 'RBank' for damages to recover the loss of profits which could have been possibly made, if the information on the mark-up would not have been exposed to 'Econ'. The House of Lord held that 'RBank' was in breach of its duty of confidence, so 'Sam' was entitled to recover damages on a decreasing scale over 4 years, since there was no specific undertaking from the letter of credit.

• 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.