• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제8권4호
• /
• pp.105-121
• /
• 2006

This study is related with the judgements of our country's supremcourt against the transaction of Letter of Credit which is beneficiary's fraudulent trade deal. In this case I think to analyse the judgements and to present the basic grounds on which the judgements were established. In Letter of Credit transaction, there are the major parties, such as, beneficiary, issuing bank, or confirming bank and the other parties such as applicant, negotiating bank, advising bank and paying bank. Therefore, in this cases, the beneficiary, the French Weapons' Supplier who did not shipped the commodities, created the false Bill of Lading, let his dealing bank make payment against the documents presented by him and received the proceeds from the negotiating bank or collecting bank, thereafter was bankrupted and escaped. For the first time, even though the issuing bank conceived that the presented documents were inconsistent with the terms of L/C. it did not received the payment approval from the applicant against all the discrepancies, made the negotiating bank pay the proceeds to exporter and thereafter, delivered the documents to the applicant long after the time of the issuing bank's examination of documents. The applicant who received the documents from the issuing bank, instantly did not examine the documents and inform to the issuing bank whether he accepted the documents or not. Long time after, applicant tried to clear the goods through custom when he knew the bill of ladings were false and founded out the documents had the other discrepancies which he did not approved. As the results, the applicant, Korea Army Transportation Command claimed, that the issuing bank must refund his paid amount because issuing bank examined the documents unreasonably according to u.c.p 500 Act 13th, 14th. In spite of the applicant's claim, the issuing bank argued that it paid the proceeds of L/C reasonably after receiving the applicant's approval of an discrepancy of document, the delayed shipment, but for concerning the other discrepancies, the trivial ones, the applicant did not examined the document and noticed the discrepancies in reasonable time. Therefore the applicant sued the issuing bank for refunding it's paid proceeds of L/C. Originally, this cases were risen between Korea Exchange Bank and Korea Army Transportation Command. As result of analysing the case, the contents of the case case have had same procedure actually, but the lower courts, the district and high courts all judged the issuing bank was reasonable and did not make an error. As analysing these supreme court's judgements, the problem is that whether there are the applicant's liability of examining the documents and informing its discrepancies to the issuing bank or not, and if the applicant broke such a liabilities, it lost the right of claiming the repayment from issuing bank. Finally to say, such applicant's liabilities only must be existed in case the documents arrived to the issuing bank was delivered to the applicant within the time of the documents examination according to u.c.p 500 Act 14, d. i. But if any the documents were delivered to applicant after time of the documents examination, the applicant had not such liabilities because eventhough after those time the applicant would have informed to the issuing bank the discrepancies of documents, the issuing bank couldn't receive repayment of its paid proceeds of document from the negotiating bank. In the result after time of issuing bank's examination of documents, it is considered that there's no actual benefit to ask the applicant practice it's liability. Therefore finally to say. I concluded that the Suprem Court's judgement was much more reasonable. In the following, the judgements of the supreme court would be analysed more concretely, the basic reasons of the results be explained and the way of protecting such L/C transaction would be presented.

• 디지털콘텐츠학회 논문지
• /
• 제19권5호
• /
• pp.1003-1010
• /
• 2018

신청자가 스마트 기기를 이용하여 응급 상황 신고 또는 안심 귀가 서비스를 요청하면, 스마트 관제 서비스는 신청자의 위치 정보를 이용하여 신청자 주위의 CCTV(closed circuit television) 카메라들을 선택하고 신청자를 자동으로 추적하고 촬영할 수 있다. 지속적으로 전달되는 신청자의 위치 정보를 활용하여 주변의 CCTV 카메라가 신청자를 계속 촬영하고 모니터 요원에 의하여 실시간으로 관찰되기 때문에 스마트 관제 서비스는 신청자의 응급 상황 또는 안심 귀가에 많은 도움을 줄 수 있다. 기존의 스마트 관제 서비스는 응급 상황 신고 서비스와 안심 귀가 서비스의 우선순위를 고려하지 않아 안심 귀가 서비스에 의하여 카메라들이 선점되고 있는 경우에 응급 상황 신고 서비스의 신청자는 카메라에 의하여 촬영되지 못하는 경우가 발생할 수 있는 단점을 가지고 있다. 제안된 스마트 관제 서비스는 서비스 우선순위를 이용하여 이를 개선하였다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제16권
• /
• pp.7-34
• /
• 2001

This Study analyzes the fact that whether or not, the applicant, by failing to object promptly to the facial discrepancies of the presented documents and to return those documents to the issuing bank, has waived his right to sue for breach of the Application agreement based on the recent Korea-US Case law. Some commentators claim that an applicant has a duty to notify the issuing bank within a reasonable time after receiving the documents that they do not comply with the letter of credit requirements and to return those documents to the issuing bank, and also suggest that a failure to do so result in a waiver of discrepancies that operates as a matter of law. But such decisions make little sense in letter of credit transaction. Unless otherwise agreed, Applicant agreement does not require that the applicant notify the issuing bank of any facial discrepancies of the documents or return those documents. Moreover there is no support in the body of law, i.e., UCP 500 or the Revised UCC Article 5, for an automatic waiver or preclusion arising from the applicant's failure to object promptly. In addition, beyond the lack of authority to support an automatic waiver arising from the applicant's failure to object and return the documents, in a letter of credit transaction the issuing bank is the only party charged with the duty of scrutinizing documents. Therefore, if there are discrepancies, it is the bank that should have to seek an express waiver from the applicant ; the issuing bank should not avoid responsibility for failing to notice discrepancies because the applicant was slow to scrutinize the documents closely or because the applicant failed to inform the issuing bank of such discrepancies. Requiring that applicants inspect documents independently defeats the purpose of retaining the issuing bank, erodes the bank's responsibility to perform its role diligently, and may result in the bank avoiding liability despite negligent payment. If the bank wants to require an applicant to report discrepancies promptly, he may include a provision in the Application agreement limiting the time limit within which the applicant must give notice of facial discrepancies and return the documents. This approach will ensure the continued wide-spread use of documentary credit as a reliable payment mechanism.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제46권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• 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.

• 대한지리학회지
• /
• 제44권3호
• /
• pp.355-371
• /
• 2009

본 연구는 국내 광산업 기술지식 창출의 공간구조를 살펴보는데 목적을 둔다. 지식창출의 대리지표로서 특허데이터를 활용하였으며, 키워드를 이용하여 1996${\sim}$2007년 사이에 출원된 광산업 등록특허를 대상으로 했다. 미국특허상표청에 등록된 광산업 특허는 한국이 대만과 더불어 광산업 분야의 후발주자로서 급속히 성장하고 있음을 보여주었다. 한국특허청에 등록된 광산업 특허는 단독특허와 공동특허로 구분하여 살펴보았다. 단독특허의 경우, 광산업 기술지식이 서울, 수원, 대전에 상당히 편중되어 창출되고 있지만 편중 정도는 점차 완화되고 있음을 보여주었다. 공동특허의 경우도 상기된 지역들이 대체로 중심적인 위치를 차지하지만, 지역 간 군집과 연결 양상은 시기별로 상이했다. 공동특허에 참여하는 주체가 다양해진데 기인하며 정보통신 인프라 개선, 광산업 육성, 산학 협력 촉진과 같은 정책적 영향이 주요했던 것으로 보인다.

• 복식문화연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.401-412
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of female applicant's facial attractiveness and feminine-masculine clothing image on job performance evaluation and hiring decision. The research design of study consisted of 3(facial attractiveness high, middle, low)${\times}$2(feminine and masculine clothing image) factorial design. The subject consisted of 243 persons whose occupation were mid-sized companies' administrator in Gwangju and Seoul City. The data were analyzed by factor analysis, Duncan test, ANOVA, t-test. The results of this study were as follows. First, three factors emerged to account for the job performance evaluation. These factors were given the titles of task performance, cooperation and self-management factors. Second, applicant's facial attractiveness exerted significant positive effect on self-management and significant negative effect on cooperation. Third, applicant's facial attractiveness exerted significant effect on hiring decision. Finally, the interaction effect of female applicant's facial attractiveness and feminine-masculine clothing image on job performance evaluation and hiring decision were not significant.

• 기록학연구
• /
• 제5호
• /
• pp.111-148
• /
• 2002

Digitalization of public administration information shall be accelerated more. When information exists both in the form of electronic and paper record, even the disclosure of paper record make it possible the access to public administration information itself, but there may some needs for the disclosure of electronic record in applicant's situation. Similarly, when only electronic record exists, there may be some problem about whether to disclose the record as print-out or as being electronic format itself. Thus, the method and format of disclose are very sensitive issues, and it is very important to clarify who has the competence to decide the method and format of disclosure, applicant or the public agency. In making any record available to an applicant under the EFOIA in America, the public agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the applicant, if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format. And for the convenience of the applicant with sensory disability, the AIA in Canada also permits the right to access to information in an alternative format. It is desirable also in our country that disclosure of information is done by public agencies in the format that applicant wants, as possible. In the meantime, we should consider the costs and technological restrictions corresponding to the change of format of information to the format that applicant specifies. In the case of electronic record, efforts required for searching cause some hard problems. Information disclosure system requires disclosure of record that exists at the demand point, and creation of new record that does not exist at that them is not required on the public agency. For the search of electronic information, we need some code or program. So, if we evaluate that act of coding or programming as creation of new record, demand on disclosure of electronic record becomes impossible, in fact. Therefore, when we include electronic record as the object of information disclosure system, we need to clarify the degree of reasonable efforts for searching the information included in that record, as long as possible, although it is very difficult problem. Also, we should consider the way to make it permitted to demand the disclosure of electronic record by FAX or E-mail. Disclosure of electronic record itself by E-mail is not generalized yet, even in America or Canada. There are many technological and legal problems to solve, before permitting or enforcing the disclosure of electronic record by E-mail. But, it is desirable to expand the method of disclosure to including disclosure by E-mail in possible spheres. Also, as well as disclosure on demands, we need to expand electronic access to information, so far as possible, in the process of information offer.

• 한국프랜차이즈경영연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2022

Purpose: In this study we aim to identify factors affecting successful inter-firm collaboration. We tried to find out whether government subsidies to small-business owners should be made to experienced and competent cooperatives or to cooperatives with potential even if inexperienced. Research design, data and methodology: Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP), we examine if evaluation criteria for the Small Business Collaboration Grant (SBCG) reflect the potential of successful collaboration of applicant cooperatives. Results: We found that experts tend to think that applicant cooperatives without any experience as a recipient for the SBSG need to be evaluated by their growth potential and their preparation of the application rather than by their business performance or achievement history. The weight of the evaluation must be different between the growth potential and the achievements already achieved. By means of an expert survey, we confirmed that Rookies should weigh evaluation indicators that can reflect their growth potential, and experienced groups should give weight to evaluation indicators that can reflect their achievements. Conclusions: For SBCG applicants with experiences, experts tend to weigh more on SBCG business performances and feasible sharing systems. The screening procedure for the first applicant cooperatives need to focus more on "partner selection" stage, whereas elements related to "realization" apply to experienced applicant cooperatives.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.107-130
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study is to provide the guideline for the loss of documents relating to the delivery of documents under Letter of Credits transactions. If the documents are lost while in transit from the nominated bank to the issuing bank neither the nominated bank nor the issuing bank is liable as Article. 35 of the UCP600. Normally such matters are settled amicably between banks and problems are only likely to give rise to litigation where this cannot be done and the applicants does not want the goods or take delivery or sell them on because of the loss of documents. UCP 2007 Revision stated that a presentation is complying and forwards the documents to the issuing bank, whether or not the nominated bank has honoured or negotiated, an issuing bank must honour or negotiate, or reimburse that nominated bank. Accordingly, the applicant liable to the issuing bank for any damage sustained as a result of the loss of document. In such circumstance it might be possible to obtain a second(duplicate) set of documents that were sufficient to satisfy the applicant that the document were compliant and enable the applicant to obtain deliver of documents or comply with the terms of a sub-sale. If the applicant does not want the documents presented, no the less, the bank might find it difficult to prove that complaint documents had been presented and, subject to the terms of arrangement with the buyer, could be liable for damage sustained by the applicant as a result the loss of the documents.