• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.23 no.5
• /
• pp.323-336
• /
• 2014

Using hedonic price method, this paper analyzes the impact of restriction for water quality protection on property value with the officially announced price of reference land in the city of Namyangju in 2012 to evaluate Water Use Fee, based on beneficiary pays principle, levied on the downstream area of the Han River in Korea. The results from the regression analyses of the models used show that the double-log model is the preferred model in the case of Namyangju. Using the double-log model, the total compensation for the city of Namyangju is estimated to be 8.6 trillion won with 95% confidence interval between 4.4 trillion and 12.4 trillion won. Under the perpetuity compensation scheme at the discount rate of 10%, the estimated annual compensation is 0.9 trillion won with 95% confidence interval between 0.4 trillion and 1.2 trillion won. This is more than Water Use Fee collected in 2012 for the Han River, which is approximately 0.5 trillion won. Considering the size of the restricted area of the Paldang area, which is more than 18 times of that of Namyangju, the rate of Water Use Fee, which is based on beneficiary pays principle and imposed on the residents of the downstream area, needs to be increased to sufficiently compensate the economic loss caused to the upstream areas of the Han River in Korea.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2010

L/C provides the exporter and the importer with safe assurance in the exchange of goods for payment in international trade. It involves a number of parties. Although the parties may have confidence in their client, bad faith or ignorance of international banking practice by any of these parties could cause the failure of transaction, which makes international trade a risky business. Most of the risks are found in transport document, which can cause disputes. There are many factors in the risk of transport documents under L/C transaction. One most common risk factor for the beneficiary in all transport documents is even if there is no discrepancy in document, the issuing bank or the applicant refuses to pay or delay payment insisting there is a discrepancy. In some very rare cases, the beneficiary may not get paid due to unfair injunction of the local court of the applicant. For the applicant, most common risk factors are fake bill and fraud. Risks classified according to the sorts of transport documents are as follows. 1. In B/L, payment can be refused because it is regarded as charter party B/L, although there is no real charter party contract. And the applicant can bear the potential risk of the loss or deterioration of cargo through transhipment of the cargo loaded on board in container if transhipment is prohibited without excluding of UCP 600 article 20 (c). 2. In charter party B/L, the applicant may take delivery without paying when charter party B/L is signed by charterer, which can result in a big loss for the beneficiary and the negotiating bank. And risks may arise when cargo is seized because the charterer does not pay the hire. The applicant and the issuing bank are also vulnerable to a risk - Against whom should they file a suit when cargo gets damaged during transportation? 3. In multimodal transport document, which is subject to a conflict because there is a big difference in viewpoints between transport industry and banks, conflicts may also arise when L/C requires ocean B/L and accepts multimodal transport document at the same time, but does not specify the details. 4. In air waybill, where the consignee is not the issuing bank but the applicant, risks may take place to the beneficiary when the applicant takes delivery but refuses to pay asserting minor discrepancies in document. The applicant may also bear the risk when cargo may not be loaded because air waybill is a received bill. Another risk may arise when although the applicant prohibits transhipment without excluding UCP 600 article 23 (c), the cargo may be transhipped, provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same air waybill.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.433-456
• /
• 2012

The confirming bank undertakes to make payment to the beneficiary, provided that a complying presentation is made and complies with its confirmation. In case L/C fraud is evident, though, the confirming bank as well as the issuing bank does not have the obligation to make payment. That is, the confirming bank does not take the risks involving documentary fraud. The confirming bank cannot exercise the right to recourse toward the beneficiary or the nominated bank when the issuing bank finds the discrepancies which the confirming bank has not noticed. This is because under UCP600, the issuing bank or the confirming bank cannot refuse to make payment with the cause of documentary discrepancy after 5 banking days following the presentation of documents. Even if the issuing bank accepts the discrepant documents following the confirming bank's request to do so, the confirming bank does not have the responsibility for the confirmation. When under Usance Negotiation Credit, the confirming bank acts as the nominated bank, the confirming bank should make payment in no time if the beneficiary presents complying documents. Therefore, unless the confirming bank intends to make immediate payment, they should consider using Deferred Payment or Acceptance L/C in Usance Credit. It is also safer for the beneficiary to have the reimbursing bank's undertaking to the reimbursement than just have confirmation of the credit because in the latter case they may not have full payment due to disputes regarding discrepancies of the documents even if they have confirmation of the credit.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The UCP is recognized as the governing law for L/C transactions, but it covers only the general details of the transaction and does not cover all complex practices. In view of this limitation, this paper examines a negotiation transaction which is most actively utilized in L/C transactions via a thorough review of the UCP provisions, analyzes the problems of the negotiation clause in the UCP, and suggests appropriate countermeasures to deal with unnecessary litigation costs. By doing so, the parties involved in the negotiation transaction would be able to avoid financial costs such as having to pay for lawsuits. Design/methodology - The present study first differentiates the general types of L/Cs (e.g., sight payment L/C, deferred payment L/C, acceptance L/C, and negotiation L/C), explains and the Article 2 and Article 12(b) of the UCP 600 where the term 'negotiation' is used, digs into the drawbacks of 'negotiation' occurring under the UCP 600, and discusses solutions to the problems found by analyzing the drawbacks descriptively. Findings - After a review of the UCP provisions on negotiation in detail, several possible problems which may occur in practice were discovered. First, as the UCP stipulates, the negotiating bank will want to delay payment to the maximum extent possible and make payment on the banking day on which the issuing bank reimburses the amount. This may lead the beneficiary towards bankruptcy or put it in financial crisis. Second, when a fraudulent transaction occurs, the negotiating bank can neither request the issuing bank to reimburse nor can it exercise its recourse right against the beneficiary because it has obtained all the rights of the beneficiary by purchasing the documents. Third, there is a practice in which the beneficiary sells the documents to its transaction bank which is not the nominated bank if the nominated bank specified in the credit is located in a third country or the exporter has no relationship with the nominated bank in the credit. In this case, whether to accept this and reimburse the non-nominated negotiating bank entirely depends on the issuing bank's decision even though such practice frequently occurs in Korea. Originality/value - There has been little research effort pertaining to negotiation transactions in detail even though negotiation L/C transactions account for around 70% in world trade notwithstanding deferred payment L/Cs and acceptance L/Cs that are also negotiated in practice. Thus, if the negotiations clause under the UCP 600 provisions were reviewed and the drawbacks of the negotiation transactions most actively used in L/C transactions were identified and examined, specific countermeasures could ultimately help smoothen the operation of L/C transactions and prevent financial losses.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2016

Independent guarantee is new financial product developed in international commercial transaction. The nature of independent guarantee is an independent undertaking, which takes the form of documentary transaction. As long as the documents presented by the beneficiary are on their face complying with the terms and conditions of the guarantee, the guarantor is obliged to pay upon the complying presentation. Where parties choose to apply for issue of independent guarantee in international commercial transactions in China, Chinese court shall respect the autonomy of parties. If either the guarantor or the beneficiary is located outside of China, or the facts which cause the establishment, change or cancellation of independent guarantee relationship occurred outside of China, it shall be deemed as foreign related independent guarantee. If the interested parties requests for confirmation of the independence of foreign related independent guarantee, it shall be supported by Chinese court. However, parties dealing with Chinese domestic commercial transaction have not fully realized the severity of independent guarantee liability. The market credit is being cultivated and the financial innovation is being explored at present in China. In order to guard against the systematic and the regional financial risk, before relevant rules are promulgated, Chinese court shall not recognize the independence guarantees issued for the domestic commercial transaction, but treat it as joint liability surety.

• International Journal of Quality Innovation
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.129-147
• /
• 2008

This research is to investigate the effect of the improvement of investment environments with investment incentive on Korean national economy by looking into the foreign investment support system in Korea. To this end, first research model was set up based on our literary study and case study was conducted on 150 foreign companies that were located in industrial complex for foreign companies, received the tax benefit and government subsidization. And it was found that even though the foreign companies were contributing to the national economy in general such as in the area of production, export, employment, development of technology, there was no significant contributory difference between the investment incentive beneficiary and non-beneficiary foreign companies. Therefore it deemed reasonable to reconsider the way Korean government supports foreign companies in Korea and to reinforce foreign companies' relevance to national policy agenda with additional incentives to foreign companies located in comparatively less developed areas. As a way to promote foreign investment, promotion of investment infra such as improvement of follow-up services, openness to foreign investment, industrial deregulations in capital area, revitalization of free economic zone, efficient system to promote foreign investment and the reinforcement of public relations were considered necessary, especially the upgrading of economic structure and the integrated management of domestic and foreign investors deemed necessary for the optimal distribution of the industries.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.203-223
• /
• 2005

Many international transactions involve the use of security devices, commonly referred to as "guarantees", "bonds", or "standby credits", designed to protect one of the parties from a breach by its counter-party. These security mechanisms may be provided by banks, insurance companies, specialized surety companies, or other financial service firms. Although some legal systems distinguish between "guarantees", "bonds", and "indemnities", these terms are often used as synonyms in the everyday language of international traders. It may therefore be necessary to examine the particular characteristics and nature of the guarantee obligation in order to properly classify the guarantee. Two main categories of guarantee are demand and suretyship. Under a demand guarantee, the guarantor must pay on first demand by the beneficiary. The beneficiary only has to demand payment under the guarantee - there is no need to prove that the principal has actually defaulted on a contractual obligation. Under a suretyship or conditional guarantee, the obligation of the guarantor is triggered by the actual default or contractual breach of the principal, as evidenced in a document such as a court judgement or arbitral award against the principal. Guarantees have been widely used in the international business transactions. Main uses of guarantees are as follows : Performance Bonds/Guarantees, Bid(or Tender) Bonds/Guarantees, Advance Payment or Repayment Bonds/Guarantees, Retention Bonds/Guarantees, Maintenance(or Warranty) Bonds/Guarantees etc.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.111-135
• /
• 2013

This study analyzes some important spin-off effects of the provision, UCP600 Article 14(6), through the methodology of the expected utility maximization theory based on the state-contingent commodities model. Some technical implications of this study are as follows. First, the risk-averse beneficiary will choose to present his documents more than 5 days before expiry date by paying a higher risk premium (so-called cure period) for full assurance to cure documentary discrepancies, if expressed economically, he pursues loss reducing activities to the point where the expected marginal product of his activities is less than its marginal cost. Secondly, where the effectiveness of securing cure period is uncertain, the risk-averse beneficiary will choose to present documents just on the expiry date without securing any cure period by paying no risk premium. This study finally suggests the safe harbor standard should be optimal solution only if it is supplemented by the hidden reasonableness standard for balancing the conflicts of interest between beneficiaries and banks.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.213-238
• /
• 2006

Deferred payment letter of credit is the L/C that makes the issuing bank to pay a beneficiary at maturity stipulated in the credit. In this deferred payment letter of credit transaction, is it possible that a confirming or nominating bank payor negotiate before maturity? and the confirming or nominating bank have legal protection when paid or negotiated before maturity? These problems are raised in argument. By the way, Korea, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy are positive on the above question, but France, United Kingdom, and Singapore are negative. Therefore, when using deferred payment letter of credit, it is required to keep in mind that the understanding of maturity stipulated in the credit is different among countries, legal principles of each nations, and researchers. And other problems are raised also as follows; the application of Fraud Rule and principle of independence and abstraction as nature of credit, when to pay credit amount to beneficiary, and refusal of payment due to poor quality. Finally, it is required to use deferred payment letter of credit, after full understanding of deferred payment letter of credit pointed out in this paper.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2011

This paper is to analyze the legality in which the fraud rule allow the issuer of L/C or a court to disrupt the payment to the beneficiary under the deferred payment credit when the nominated bank for deferred payment undertaking made prepayment or negotiation before the maturity date and fraud is identified to be involved. Since the function of commercial L/C is to provide absolute assurance of payment to a beneficiary, the fraud rule based on fraud exception has been known as the negative factor which lead to the disruption of "principle of independence & abstraction" under the commercial L/C transactions. As a result, the fraud rule is necessary to limit the activities of fraudsters, but its scope must be carefully circumscribed so as not to deny commercial utility to an instrument that exists to serve as an assurance of payment. But the fraud itself has not been firmly established because it is inherently pliable in its concept. There are numerous contents to describe the application of fraud to the L/C transactions as a standard such as egregious fraud, intentional fraud, L/C fraud(omitted here), flexible fraud, and constructive fraud. And so the standard applicable to the commercial transaction as the fraud rule would be high or low depending upon the various standards of fraud.