• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.139-164
• /
• 2011

Traditionally courts have been adopted over the years two standards of dealing with compliance of documents such as strict compliance and substantial compliance and the substantial compliance, which was somewhat less demanding than the strict compliance. However the new guidelines of ICC's international standard banking practice for the examination of documents under documentary credits set up how the UCP is to be applied in practice. The payment obligations of an issuing bank to a beneficiary are independence of the performance or the nonperformance of any contract underlying the letter of credit. However, strictly applying the principle of independence and abstraction could produce unfair results by operating unjustly enrich an unscrupulous beneficiary in case of fraud. Accordingly, when a beneficiary presents complying documents, the issuing bank is bound to honour the presentation unless the fraud rule applies on the facts of the case such as forged or material fraud. If it does, the issuing bank(issuer) needs not pay despite the complying presentation of documents by the beneficiary under the Uniform Commercial Code Article 5-109 and case law in America. However the fraud rule was not addressed in UCP 600. In conclusion, view in terms of legal principle and the court cases is variable and difficult to honour or dishonour the presentation in case of application of the independence principle and fraud rule such as the problems on burden of proof timely, possibility of granting injunction in order to protect against victim for bona fide applicant.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.373-386
• /
• 2008

In highschool probability education, this study analyzed conflicts between intuitive concept and formal definition which originates from the process of establishing the concept of statistical independence. In judging independence, completely different types of problems requiring their own approach was analyzed by dividing them into two types. By doing so, this study researched a way to view independence as an overall idea. That is purposed to suggest a solution to a conflicts between intuitive concept and formal definition and to help not to judge independence out of wrong intuition. This study also suggests that calculation process which leads to precise perception of sample space and event be provided when we prove independence by expressing events with assembly symbols.

• Korean Journal of Child Studies
• /
• v.29 no.5
• /
• pp.113-131
• /
• 2008

This study examined mothers' ratings of everyday rules for their young children. Participants were 294 mothers of 2- to 5-year-old children attending kindergartens and nursery schools in Korea. Data were collected by questionnaire and were analyzed by $x^2$. Results indicated that the majority of mothers' rules for their children pertained to safety, interpersonal issues, and as children got older, social conventions. Mothers endorsed prudential justifications for safety and self-care, moral justifications for interpersonal rules, practical and moral justifications for safeguarding property, and conventional justifications for obedience/order and food/mealtime routines. Analyses of mothers' judgments of rule independence indicated that rules on interpersonal and safety issues were to be kept without exception.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.55-74
• /
• 2007

The documentary credit has been functioning as an indispensable tool for making international commercial transactions safer throughout the world since ICC adopted the second revision of the Uniform Customs and Practices for Commercial Documentary Credits in 1962. Letter of Credit transaction should be cleared by the principle of the trust and integrity and vile partners sometimes make a fraud on the L/C by the misinterpretation of the documents. As there is no rule but no exception, exception from application of these principles is allowed. The fraud exception nile constitutes contracting out an application of basic principles, this rule should apply restrictively and in many authorities a court does not apply this rule to nominated bank, confirming bank, and bona fide holder of draft even if fraud is involved in L/C transactions. If not, we lose a lot of benefits from the credit as valuable commercial device through reservation of these principles to take a few benefits. So, We need to recognize that the fraud exception rule should be applied restrictively. Therefore, this study reviewed condition of application and exception from application of fraud exception rule in view of Cardozo's opinion, the Sztejn court, and UCC Sections-114(2).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2009

This paper aims at assessing reasonableness for restraining the independence principle in the operation of documentary credit in case of the illegality appeared in the underlying transactions. It has been a major rule under the independence principle to keep the credit operation free from the defences made by the issuing bank and/or credit applicant with a view to prevent the payment as specified under the credit. And also, it is generally accepted in the international commercial community to examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the document alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. Even though these two essences are major rules in the credit operation, if a presentation is made with the documents forged or materially fraudulent, the issuing bank can refuse to pay the documents in respect of fraud rule based on fraud exception for which a court of appropriate jurisdiction would enjoin such honour. Now we have newly come to another situation to determine whether or not we have to apply the same as fraud rule which is applicable to the illegality in the underlying contract under the new conception of illegality principle based on illegality exception. English Commercial Court handled the illegality case under the case of Mahonia Ltd., v. JP Morgan Chase Bank in 2003 and Justice Colman decided that issuing bank can rely on illegality affecting a letter of credit as an excuse for failure to pay. This judgement brought about the acceptance of illegality principle based on illegality exception as a defence to payment under a letter of credit as far as the illegality concerned in the underlying transactions. It is noticeable that this case will affect our international commercial community more to rely on the illegality in the underlying transactions as a good issue to stop payment for the issuing bank in the L/C operation.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.47 no.5
• /
• pp.115-128
• /
• 2022

This paper reviewed "unconscionability" as an exception to the independence principle of bank guarantees. Apart from fraud which has been recognized in most international jurisdictions, Uuconscionability would also be recognized as the exception to the legal principle, the so-called "fraud rule" or "an abuse of rights." Unconscionability exception is applied in the same manner as fraud and other exceptions to the principle of independence. The exception should allow guarantor to dishonor the drawings that abuse the independence principle. However, outright or manifest facts of the unconscionability must be established in order to apply the exception. Lots of arguments or conflicts may be caused in applying the unconscionability exception. Therefore, this study aims to prevent institutional abuses or to reduce the disputes from setting up the legitimate scope and standard for application of the exception by reviewing these procedural issues and problems under bank guarantee transactions. This paper also suggested practical implications and countermeasures for the institutional application.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.323-352
• /
• 1998

Documentary letters of credit including standby letters of credit are governed by the independence or abstraction rule and the doctrine of strict compliance. Since the former rule requires the issuing bank to honor the drafts regardless of the defective performance of the underlying contract, the applicant(the customer) will be without a remedy if he is unable to make himself whole by litigation on the underlying contract. Therefore, the applicant is exposed to a risk much higher than in the commercial letters of credit. The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit(UCP) has no provisions allowing legal relief for the applicant on the abuse of L/C by unscrupulous beneficiary, but UCC ${\S}5-114$ has provision allowing injunctive relief for the applicant. In this paper, I attempted to clarify certain standards of injunctive relief available for the customer in the credit. When there is fraud in the L/C transaction by any of the parties concerned, we must weigh the principle of independence or abstraction and the fraud rules. According to banking practice and judicial precedence, we need not keep the principle of independence and abstaction even in fraudulent transaction and the bona fide sufferer must be protected. The purpose of this paper is to review the studies of Fraud rule and the Injunction and to suggest the applicable standards for the Injunction therory under letters of credit. Specially this paper analysed the following ; (1) the guideline for the fraud (exception) rule to the autonomy principle, (2) the appilcable standards of the Injunction, and (3) the implications on parties concerned in letters of credit transaction. Conclusively, the Injunction should be granted if (1) there is clear proof of fraud (2) the fraud constitutes fraudulent abuse if the independent purpose of L/C (3) irreparble injury might follow if injunction is not granted or the recovery of damages would be seriously endangered.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.29-46
• /
• 2007

The fraud exception rule allows for the issuing bank to dishonor the claim if it the documents and transactions bear fraud though the documents presented are complied with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. A question arises whether the fraud exception rule can apply to innocent beneficiary when fraud is made by 3rd party. United City Merchants v. Royal Bank of Canada showed a good example how to handle in case of innocent beneficiary. At this case House of Lord found that innocent beneficiary deserves payment applying nullity exception rule. I believe that the nullity exception rule is employed for the benefit of innocent beneficiary as far as the issuer and applicant get no actual damage by the 3rd party's fraudulent action which is shown on documents.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.257-271
• /
• 2009

Stochastical independence is separated into two. One can be intuitively judged and the other is not. Independence is a concept based on assumption. However, It is defined as multiplication rule and it has produced extension of concept. Analysis on this issue is needed, assuming the cause is on the intersection sign which is used for both simultaneous events and compatible events. This study presented the extension process of independence concept in detail and constructed twofold interpretation of simultaneous events and compatible events which use the same sign $P(A\cap{B})$ with Pierce Semiotics.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.157-182
• /
• 2010

A counter-guarantee is an independent undertaking and it functions in the same way as an ordinary independent guarantee. However, the typical notion of independence which applies to the relationship between the guarantee and the underlying contract cannot be exactly transposed to the relationship between the counter-guarantee and the primary guarantee, because the primary guarantor bears its duties that derive from the mandate. In this respect, this study reviews, with some critics, a Korean appellate court's decision and argues that, in spite of the principle of independence between the counter-guarantee and the primary guarantee, the primary guarantor may not be entitled to reimbursement from the counter-guarantor, if it is objectively evident that the primary guarantor has failed to perform its duty of verifying compliance under the primary guarantor or if it is objectively evident that the primary guarantor knows that it is objectively evident that there was fraudulent calling by the beneficiary under the primary guarantee.