• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.7-35
• /
• 2002

In many international financing transactions Korean companies are required to issue a guarantee. Thus far, however, legal issues on international guarantees have not been fully discussed in Korea. This is partly because most of the international guarantees are governed by a foreign law such as English law or the laws of the State of New York. In this articles the author examines major concepts or terms and conditions of a typical international guarantee, e.g., language on consideration, primary obligor, joint and several guarantee, unconditional and irrevocable guarantee, continuing guarantee, right of subrogation, representations and warranties, covenant or undertaking, currency indemnity, assignment, participation, governing law and jurisdiction clause, etc. For reference, standard forms of a guarantee and a standby letter of credit are attached to the article. In examining the terms and conditions, the author compares them with similar or equivalent concepts under Korean law. The author further discusses some Korean law issues that may arise under international guarantees governed by a foreign law. These issues include the application of the ultra vires doctrine under Article 34 of the Civil Code of Korea, the validity of an international guarantee which a Korean company has issued in violation of the guarantee ceiling set under Article 10 of the Law on Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade of Korea and the validity of an international guarantee which a Korean party has issued in violation of the Foreign Exchange Transaction Law. In addition, the author discusses some issues under a so-called independent guarantee and a standby letter of credit. In this regard, reference is made to the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantee (URDG), International Standby Practices (ISP98) and the Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit adopted by the United Nations in 1995. Finally, the author examines major terms and conditions of typical comfort letters and discusses some legal issues, such as the binding force of the comfort letter. In dealing with the issues the author underscores that to the extent the issues are not properly dealt with by an international norm such as Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits or ISP 98, the issues must be analyzed by reference to the governing law of the relevant instrument.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.389-409
• /
• 2012

The Switched Bill of Lading(SBL) has been in frequent use in recent years as intermediary trade increases with the growing number of companies' overseas subsidiaries. Its frequent use, though, has brought about disputes regarding its illegal issue. Although there are several legal cases regarding this, studies on this issue are hard to find. Therefore, this study tries to provide countermeasures and precautions against unlawful issues of SBL through examining the legal cases resulting from illegal issuing practices of SBL. When the Switched Bill of Lading is issued, the shipper, consignee, port of loading and unloading, and shipping date of the original bill of lading are usually changed. Statements which may put the shipper at a disadvantageous position may also be deleted and/or the bill of lading may be either divided or integrated when it is issued. However, if the carrier issues the SBL 1)without withdrawing original BL, 2)indicating the shipping date, port of loading and port of discharge falsely, or 3)deleting the statements which may give him disadvantages, it may be regarded as an illegal issue. These unlawful issues of SBL may pose a huge threat to the shipper, banks and the parties relating to the trade. That is, the shipper may take a substantial loss when the goods can be delivered to a third party by SBL without his collecting the proceeds. The issuing bank and the negotiating bank may also have their security rights to the goods hampered by the illegal and improper issue of SBL. In most cases, the carrier has no choice but to issue the SBL without collecting the original BL for fear of hurting the relationship with the intermediary traders. This practice of issuing more than two sets of BL may pose a potential risk to the carrier.