• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.59-85
• /
• 2008

An independent bank guarantee(aka an independent guarantee) is provided as an security on a principal obligor's performance of his obligation, and a guarantor should pay the guaranteed amount only upon a beneficiary's written demand. A standby letter of credit has been used in the United States, since it was construed that a bank should not issue a guarantee. There was wide misunderstanding that a standby letter of credit differs from an independent bank guarantee. However, a standby letter of credit is the same security as an independent bank guarantee, and in international business a standby letter of credit is not differentiated from a independent bank guarantee. An independent bank guarantee are independent from the underlying contract, unconditional, and irrevocable. And a guarantor should pay upon written demand without proving a principal obligor breaches the underlying contract. These features of an independent bank guarantee has been abused in international transactions. Thus it has been proposed that some exceptions to the features of an independent bank guarantee should be allowed. United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Standby Letter of Credit(1995) stipulates some exceptions to payment obligation. Export bond insurance, a part of export insurances, operated by the Korea Export Insurance Corporation under the Export Insurance Act, is used as a security for unfair calling by a beneficiary under an independent bank guarantee. Most of the export subsides by the government are prohibited under WTO's Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. However, as export insurance is allowed under the WTO, it operates a significant role in enhancing the export. In the event that export bond insurance is provided for a guarantor, an obligor who is subject to recourse by a guarantor, can be exempt from the recourse in case of unfair calling. The Korea Export Insurance Corporation, an insurer, bears unfair calling risk by a beneficiary. Generally it is understood that a demand shall be made before the expiry of an independent bank guarantee. However this is not absolutely true, it shall be decided by URDG, ISP98, the governing law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.179-213
• /
• 2013

While a performance type guarantee is required as a security for non-performance risk by a seller, a payment guarantee is used as a security for non-payment risk by a buyer(or a borrower in a loan agreement). A payment guarantee is a type of independent bank guarantee, bank guarantee, bond, demand guarantee, or standby letter of credit. A guarantor accepts a credit risk of a principal which is normally a buyer in a contract for sale of goods. A payment guarantee is independent of the underlying relationship between the applicant and the beneficiary. The guarantor is only empowered to examine the beneficiary's demand and determine the payment on its face to the terms of the guarantee. A payment guarantee is thus different from a suretyship. The principle of independence carries a significant advantages for a guarantor as well as for a beneficiary. While a documentary credit requires B/L, commercial invoice, packing list, inspection certificate, etc., a typical payment guarantee does not require any evidence for a seller's performance of the underlying contract other than written demand. In this respect payment guarnatee can be a more secured facility than a documentary credit. A payment guarantee normally comes into force from the issuing date and shall remain in effect until all sums guaranteed shall be paid in full by a buyer(or a borrower) or by a guarantor. Although a guarantor shall pay a demand made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the payment guarantee, a payment demand may be denied when it is determined to be abusive or unfair.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.109-136
• /
• 2011

Bank Guarantee system is commonly used as useful financial instruments to support various overseas and domestic business activities by providing bank guarantees. Therefore, it will be able to develop as a useful socio-economic useful system. However, some procedural problem can arise from the processes under demands for payment. Therefore, it is very important to review the requirements of the demand for payment and compliance standard for the examination of a presentation under the guarantee system. It is necessary to examine main issues under the revised URDG 758. The URDG introduced the same examination principle of "need not be identical to, but shall not conflict with' as that of UCP 600. The main changes of the URDG 758 like this imply the mitigation of the compliance standard for examination. So, This paper is to provide a comparative study of the regulations and laws for the examination standard and propose their implications and practical notes under bank guarantee system. For this purpose, this study will be examined the practical and legal issues focusing on the relative regulations of the revision URDG 758. It will also be reviewed and compared with the URDG, ISP98, UCP 600 and so on.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.72
• /
• pp.25-55
• /
• 2016

The Buyer shall demand to the Builder the repayment of the pre-delivery instalments paid in case of the Builder's default under a ship-building contract. The Buyer require a refund guarantee issued by a financial institution for a security for the repayment of the pre-delivery instalments paid. As the title of a refund guarantee, in practice, is various, we should look into the contents or the expressions in a guarantee to decide whether a guarantee is a refund guarantee. A refund guarantee, a sort of independent bank guarantee, has characteristic of abstractness, and is independent from the ship-building contract. A refund guarantee is available against the beneficiary's first written demand and signed statement certifying that the Builder failed to make the refund in accordance with the ship-building contract. The guaranteed amount of a refund guarantee will be automatically increased in accordance with the Builder's receipt of the respective instalment, which is not in the other advance payment guarantee. These characteristics of a refund guarantee are derived from the expressions in a refund guarantee rather than inherent therein. This illustrates that careful attention is required to the contents and expressions of the main clauses in a refund guarantee.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.133-158
• /
• 2010

Independent guarantee is a creation of the need from the both sides, i.e. the applicant (principal debtor) and the beneficiary (creditor). The former used to have to deposit cash in favor of the beneficiary in case of his default, which laid a burden on his liquidity while the latter still wanted to have the equivalent to cash. Independent guarantee satisfied the both parties by freeing the applicant of a deposit and maintaining the beneficiary's right at the same time. The fact that independent guarantee has three payment mechanisms is not widely known to the public. They are (i) payment on first demand, (ii) payment upon submission of third-party documents, (iii) payment upon submission of an arbitral or court decision. From the applicant's point of view, the order in his favor is (iii), followed by (ii) and (i). As there shouldn't be a case where one party is at a disadvantage against the other, useful insight is being sought for the benefit of the applicant. First, the applicant can offer his intention to provide a payment mechanism (ii) or (iii) rather than (i) if he must deliver it. Second, if the beneficiary still wants to have (i) and the applicant is in a position not to reject it, the latter should thoroughly check any provisions that may work against him later. Third, the applicant could use counterbalancing provisions in underlying contract to cope with protective clauses in the guarantees. Forth, the applicant should review the beneficiary's sincerity to prevent unfair calling risks. The applicant may use an ECA(Export Credit Agency) in his country to which he can transfer not only unfair calling risks, but also political risks. On the other hand, a bank needs to keep the following advice in mind. The foremost important thing for the bank not to forget is that it provides a guarantee as a service provider, not as a responsible party for the feasibility of the project, etc. Credit risk of the applicant should require the greatest attention when issuing a guarantee: the bank should look into the possibility that it can procure immediate reimbursement from its customers after payment to the beneficiary. Second, the applicant's ability to complete the project should be reviewed by checking its track records, techniques and reputation, etc. Third, the bank may also use an ECA to cover the beneficiary's unfair calling risks as well as political risks. In the case of Korea, as Korea Export Insurance Corporation(KEIC) can cover all the risks mentioned above, the bank could use its service called 'Export Bond Insurance.' What's better for the bank is that ECA cover can enhance the bank's asset quality by putting it zero on its risk weighted asset.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.231-250
• /
• 2016

The study attempts to consider L/G(Letter of Guarantee) in a different angle, which is internationally used as a way of commercial customs and practices in a case when the consignee wants to receive the goods without the original Bill of Lading, Thus, this study focuses more on verifying the usage of L/G in Mixed Payment System and the range of guarantee responsibility by an issuing bank through case analysis. This case uses a mixed payment method of L/C(Letter of Credit) and T/T(Telegraphic Transfer) in the transaction of goods. The issuing bank of L/C issues L/G with the amount of L/C which is the same as the amount as C/I(Commercial Invoice). However the carrier deliver all goods laden under both L/C and T/T payment with the production of L/G. In this case, because the buyer is unable to pay, the seller makes a claim for damages to the carrier that the carrier delivers the goods to the buyer against L/G. Finally, the judge gives a decision that the issuing bank of L/G should pay the whole amount of the goods. In this case, the main issue of the dispute is the range of guarantee responsibility by the issuing bank of L/G. As a result of the case analysis, the study suggests two counter strategies for smooth utilization in international trade environment. First, in the case of mixed payment system, a seller should issue a commercial invoice separately based on the amount of each settlement plan in order to clarify the liability of guarantee. Second, banks should establish a new form for L/G including a sentence for verifying liabilities of the bank's side in the current form of L/G.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.133-160
• /
• 2009

In International trade the buyer and seller are normally separated from on another not only by distance but also by differences in language and culture. It is rarely possible for the performance of obligations to be simultaneous and the performance of contracts therefore calls for trust in a situation in which the parties are unlikely to feel able to trust each other unless they have a longstanding and successful relationship. Thus the seller under an international contract of sale will not wish to surrender documents of title to goods to the buyer until he has at least an assurance of payment, and no buyer will wish to pay for goods until he has received them. A gap of distrust thus exists which is often bridged by the undertaking of an intermediary known and trusted by both parties who will undertake on his own liability to pay the seller the contract price in return for the documents of title and then pass the documents to the buyer in return for the reimbursement. This is a common explanation of the theory behind the documentary letter of credit in which the undertaking of a bank of international repute serves as a "guarantee" to each party that the other will perform his obligations. The independence principle, also referred to as the "autonomy principle", is at the core of letter of credit or bank guarantee law. This principle provides that the letter of credit or bank guarantee is independent of the underlying contractual commitment - that is, the transaction that the credit is intented to secure - between the applicant and the beneficiary ; the credit is also independent of the relationship between the bank and its customer, the applicant. The most important exception to the independence principle is the doctrine of fraud in the transaction. A strict interpretation of the rule that the guarantee is independent of the underlying transaction would lead to the conclusion that neither fraud nor manifest abuse of rights by the beneficiary would constitute an objection to payment. There is one major problem related to "Independent guarantees", namely abusive or unfair callings. The beneficiary may make an unfair calling under the guarantee. The countermeasure of beneficiary's unfair calling divided three cases. First, advance countermeasure namely by contract. In other words, when the formation of the contract, the parties must insert the Force Majeure Clause, Arbitration Clause to Contract, and clear statement to the condition for demand calling. Second, post countermeasure namely by court. Many countries, including the United States, authorize the courts to grant an order enjoining the issuer from paying or enjoining the beneficiary from receiving payment under the guaranty letter. Third, Export Insurance. For example, the Export Credit Guarantees Department is prepared, subject to certain conditions, to cover the risk of unfair calling. Of course, KEIC in Korea is cover the risk of the all things for guarantees. On international projects, contractor performance is usually guaranteed by either a standby letters of credit or Independent guarantee. These instruments will be care the parties.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.27-43
• /
• 2009

This article explored the customers protection regulations in electronic payment system by Article 4A of the UCC and EFTA of 1978 and by Electronic Financial Transaction Act of Korea. Both Korea and America have various regulations to protect concerned parties(customers). For examples, the errors of payment order, money-back guarantee, and unauthorized payment order etc. First, this Article focuses on the allocation of risk of loss caused by ambiguous term in payment orders that do not express the subjective intention of the senders. Second, most rights and obligations created by Article 4A of America can be varied with the agreement of affected parties. But there are some exceptions. The exceptions include the money-back guarantee. So Receiving bank have to pay to originator the ordered money included interest. However, Korea also has money-back guarantee but bank do not pay interest to sender. Lastly, Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978 and Regulation E has US$ 50 regulation in order to protect customers on the unauthorized payment order. Article 4A imposes duty to detect unauthorized payment orders to originator in relation to the establishment of commercially reasonable security procedure, while Korean law imposes the duty to notify the bank in order to decrease the loss resulted from unauthorized payment order.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.113-144
• /
• 2018

This study explores how to prevent the fraudulent export financing and its subsequent export insurance fraud in relation to O/A negotiation. Under the traditional letter of credit(L/C) transactions, the banks, as a negotiation bank, can extend trade financing to the exporters through negotiation of draft and/or shipping documents. Under the O/A transaction scheme, however, bank cannot ascertain existence of trade performance and it is much riskier to extend an advance financing to the exporters before the buyer sends confirmation of debt. In O/A negotiation. some exporters tried to fraud banks by falsifying the shipping documents and the size and gravity of this fraudulent export financing were huge. Therefore, this study examines the banking process in O/A-based trade financing, documents examination process, the negotiation of instruments, treatment of trade financing in export credit guarantee, most importantly, explores what could be the criteria for appropriate treatment of account receivable to insure the safe transfer of account receivable. To maximize the benefit for optimum trade financing, the Bank of Korea established several Trade Finance Rules (refers to "BOK Rules") requiring that commercial banks should maintain optimal credit limits(so called, 'the principle of optimal loan') to extend the trade finance. The K-sure post-shipment credit guarantee programs and short-term export insurance program(EFF)can also facilitate 'the principle of optimal loan' principle.

• 한국무역상무학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2006.12a
• /
• pp.83-115
• /
• 2006