• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제36권
• /
• pp.47-84
• /
• 2007

The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits ("UCP") may be treated as a useful laboratory for studying the scope and limitations of self regulation. This is due to its almost universal success on a global stage which provides it a perspective rarely available for self regulatory provisions and due to extensive experience of judicial review of it. In this sense, it is worthwhile to examine in brief the latest iteration of the UCP, Publication No. 600 ("UCP600"). This article describes and analyze some of core provisions of the UCP600 from the perspective of their adequacy as an exercise in self regulation. It is attempted first in view of several categories of private rulemaking; definitional rulemaking, default rules, procedural rules, and remedies. After that, it is examined second in view of sound rulemaking which is related to the relative role of law and practice. It points out rich and varied insights into the possibilities and problems associated with private rulemaking in connection with commercial transactions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제33권
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2007

A non-documentary conditions is a condition contained in the credit without reference to the presented document in compliance therewith, thereby causing many problems to all parties involved in letter of credit transactions. The purpose of this study is to examine the regulations on the non-documentary conditions under Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits: UCP, International Standby Practices: ISP98, United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantee and Stand-by Letters of Credit: CIGSLC and Uniform Commercial Code: UCC and also the opinions on the effect of non-documentary conditions through the analysis of several cases on the non-documentary conditions. The result of this study can be summarized as follows: First, UCP, ISP98, CIGSLC and UCC stipulate that banks will deem non-documentary conditions as not stated and will disregard them. Second, courts used to permit the effect of non-documentary conditions. Finally, all parties should not attempt to put in any non-documentary conditions in order to prevent disputes on the effect of non-documentary conditions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.405-427
• /
• 1999

Although Uniform Customs and practice for Documentary(UCP) is not a law, it applies to most documentary credits and is binding on all parties unless otherwise expressly stipulated. Besides, Uniform Commercial Code(UCC) Article 5 was codified by the United States and was adopted by every state. Moreover, the New York version of the UCC Article 5-102(4) specifically providing that the UCC does not apply to letters of credit where the parties agree to be governed by the UCP. Identical nonuniform Articles were latter added in Alabama, Arizona, and Missouri. The fact that courts in forty-six of the fifty states are bound by Article 5. Until now, Article 5 of the UCC has probably had an impact on the decisions in New York and the New York common law. Therefore, I examined a few issues on application between Article 5 of the UCC and the UCP. First, although the UCP attempt to introduce a new for examination of document by incorporating "standard practice of financial institutions" and "international banking practice", the standards for documentary compliance are not clear. The UCC attempt to rely on the matter of interpretation for the court, but the UCP would probably be interested in examining in about bank's internal practices as reflected in UCP Articles. Second, the rule for nondocumentary conditions is a useful for stand-by credit transactions under the UCC, but these conditions would probably put the bank in an even worse position in case of documentary credit transactions under the UCP. Third, the UCP does not contain any provision governing the fraud exception, but the UCC codified the fraud and forgery rules developed through American case law. Fourth, the UCP treats the issue of transfer in much more detail than the UCC does. In contract, the UCP's treatment of assignment of proceeds is brief. Finally, I suggest that the fraud exception rules should be prescribed in the UCP in order to protect the issuing bank and the applicant when an unscrupulous party attempts to defraud.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.173-199
• /
• 2008

A letter of credit transaction of the preexistence have been raising one's head fraud charge problem as a result of abusing the principles of independence and abstraction. Every society has certain rules and conventions which it regards as important and most of people in any society. The paper document means a document in a traditional paper form. The eUCP credit must specify the formats in which electronic records are to be presented. In these present times, the issuance of documentary credit are performed by the SWIFT(Society for Worldwide Inter bank Financial Telecommunication) system. The eUCP have been written to allow for presentation completely electronically or for a mixture of paper documents and electronic presentation. Presentation is deemed not to have been made if the Beneficiary's notice is not received. An electronic record that cannot be authenticated is deemed not to have been presented. The e-UCP is the supplement of current existing UCP but is superior to UCP under some circumstances. The document shall include an electronic record. The place for presentation of electronic records means an electronic address. The current e-UCP is not clear on this matter. We have to note followings in case of presenting the documents electronically and applying the e-UCP. There are three principles in the letter of credit transaction, that is to say, independence and abstraction, document dealing, strict compliance. IN the electronic letter of credit, these principles are called as independence and abstraction, electronic document dealing, strict compliance.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제16권5호
• /
• pp.87-114
• /
• 2014

ISBP는 2002년 화환신용장통일규칙(UCP 500) 하에서 ISBP645가 처음 발간된 이래, 2007년 화환신용장통일규칙이 UCP600으로 개정되자 이에 맞춰 ISBP681로 개정되었고, 다시 2013년 ISBP745가 발간된 것이다. 따라서 ISBP745는 ISBP의 세 번째 버전이자, 두 번째 개정이 되는 셈이다. ISBP의 두 번째 버전인 ISBP681은 UCP의 개정에 따른 것이나, ISBP745는 기존의 ISBP681이 시간 제약에 따라 개정보다는 업데이트 수준에 머물러 국제표준은행관행을 제대로 반영하지 못한다는 지적과 UCP600이 시행된 이후 상당한 기간이 경과되어 새로운 관행을 반영하여야 한다는 등의 개정필요성이 제기됨에 따라 UCP600하에서 다시 개정된 것이라 할 것이다. 신용장 거래에서 요구하는 서류는 매우 다양하며 ISBP745는 이와 같은 현실을 반영하여 ISBP681에서 규정한 원산지 증명서와 선적전검사증명서, 분석증명서, 검사증명서 이외에 추가적인 서류에 대하여 언급하고 이에 대한 판단근거를 제시하는 등의 추가적인 개정이 이루어졌다. 본 연구는 이러한 상황의 변화에 따라 ISBP745의 주요 개정 내용을 살펴보고, 특히 수익자증명서, 포장명세서, 중량증명서, 분석증명서, 훈증증명서 등 ISBP745에서 새롭게 추가된 서류의 심사기준과 실무적 적용에 관한 시사점을 얻고자 하였다. 또한 ISBP745에는 포함되지 않았으나 신용장 조건에서 빈번하게 요구되는 각종 증명서와 통지서 등에 대한 고찰을 통하여 신용장의 서류조건 일치에 대한 분석과 이에 따른 시사점을 도출하고자 하였다. 실무업계에서는 신용장의 문구를 세밀하게 살펴보고 신용장 조항에 나타난 다양한 선적서류들에 대한 지시사항과 ISBP 규정을 숙지하여 신용장 거래에 있어 서류불일치로 인하여 발생하는 시간과 비용의 문제들을 해결하여야 할 것이다.