• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.117-142
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to examine the basic principles for the examination of documents in terms of the basic duty to examine the documents, the time allowed to the banks to examine the documents, linkage among the documents, the originality of documents and their issuers, and the rejection formula of documents. Further this author would look at the changes of particular transport document including bill of lading, charter-party bill of lading and so on. From the seller's perspective, the changes of the principles and individual documents under UCP600 are the most important in the sense that they affect the criteria against which the payment is made. The major changes include the omission of the phrase "with reasonable care", in terms of the basic examination principles, substitute the phrase "five banking days following the day of presentation" for the phrase "reasonable time, not to exceed seven banking days following the days of receipt of documents", introduce the new wording about the linkage between the documents tendered, and make clear the meaning of the originality of documents as well as the rejection formula. For transport documents, even though dealing with bill of lading, charter-party bill of lading, transport document covering at least two different modes of transport, freight-forwarder bill of lading and freight collect transport documents, this paper focuses on the "transhipment" of bill of lading and the definition of charter-party bill of lading. Thus, UCP has been changed several times to reflect the new banking customs and practice. It, however, would not answer every questions which users and banks will raise. These questions may be best answered in the particular underlying contract. The UCP are necessary but not a sufficient instrument for the smooth operation of an international trade transaction. The rules are now out: it remains to be seen what the players do with it.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권4호
• /
• pp.241-265
• /
• 2013

은행은 오직 서류만을 기초로, 서류가 문면상 일치하는 제시인지 여부를 심사하여야 하며, 물품이나 기초거래 또는 기타 거래관련 사항들을 심사할 필요는 없다. 은행은 제시서류의 형식 충분성 정확성 진정성 위조 여부 또는 법적효력에 대하여 어떠한 의무나 책임도 지지 아니한다. 본 논문의 연구 목적은 신용장거래에서 은행의 서류 심사에 관하여 고찰하는바, 특히 국제상업회의소(ICC)가 제정한 신용장통일규칙(Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credit, 2007 Revision, ICC Publication No.600)과 국제표준은행관행(International Standard Banking Practice, ISBP Publication No.745), Banking Committee의 견해 및 영국의 판례를 중심으로 연구를 진행하였다. 그동안 신용장에 대하여는 그 중요성만큼이나 다양한 분야에서 연구가 진행되어 왔으며, 특히 은행의 서류심사 기준과 요건, 서류심사표준과 불일치서류 제시에 따른 효과, 사기의 문제 및 수익자의 일치하는 제시에 따른 개설은행의 의무 등 다수의 논문이 발표되었다. 선행연구와의 차별성에 관하여, 본 논문은 은행의 서류심사 시 고려사항과 서류불일치에 따른 은행의 조치를 중심으로 UCP600 규정(UCP500과의 비교)의 해석은 물론 2013년 발행된 ISBP745와 다수의 외국판례를 분석 고찰함으로써 실무당사자들에게 필요한 사전지식과 정보를 제공하는데 의의를 두었다.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.255-275
• /
• 2013

본 연구는 신용장 서류심사의 일치성 판단기준에 대해 우리나라 대법원의 실무적 판례를 중심으로 고찰하고자 한다. 대법원의 서류심사의 일치성 판단기준은 엄격일치의 원칙이 지지되고 있다. 그리고 대법원이 서류심사에서 그 판단이 구체적인 경우는 신용장과의 차이가 국제적 표준은행관행에 비추어 용인될 수 있는가의 여부를 따른다. 이 경우 대법원은 국제표준은행관행으로 국제상업회의소(ICC)의견이나 결정을 참고하기도 하고, ICC의 의견이나 결정이 없는 경우는 국제표준은행관행을 탐구하여 인정하기도 할 것이다. 그러나 은행 서류심사자들이 서류심사를 할 경우 고도의 높은 식견과 지식이 없으므로 짧은 시간에 이를 찾아 판단하는 것이 지극히 어려운 일이 될 것이다. 본 연구의 사례에서 보듯이 신용장의 엄격일치의 원칙은 계속 완화되어 가고, 최근의 판례는 거의 대부분 엄격일치의 예외로 판시하고 있다. 그러므로 은행 서류심사자들은 이와 같은 일치성판단이 어렵기 때문에 자의적 서류심사행위를 하는 것이 불가피하게 될 것이다. 그 결과 은행과 개설의뢰인은 서류상의 엄격성을 확보하는 것이 어렵게 되고, 국제거래에서 신용장의 자유로운 사용을 기피하게 될 것이다. 따라서 은행실무자의 신용장 서류심사의 일치성 판단기준에 대한 다양한 실무적 적용에 본 연구가 활용되기를 기대한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• pp.131-154
• /
• 2014

The International Standard Banking Practice for the Examination of Documents under UCP 600 (ISBP 745) is the product by the Drafting Group of the ICC Banking Commission during a number of years. ISBP 745 is a practical complement to UCP 600, ICC's universally used rules on documentary credits. ISBP 745 does not amend UCP 600. Two rules should be read in their entirety and not in isolation. ISBP 745 explains, in explicit detail, how the UCP 600 rules are to be applied on a day-to-day basis. It fills a needed gap between the general principles announced in UCP 600 and the daily work of the documentary credit practitioners. It has developed into an invaluable aid to banks, corporates, logistics and insurance companies alike, on a global basis. By using ISBP 745, document checkers can bring their practices in line with those followed by their colleagues worldwide. The result should be a significant reduction in the number of shipping documents refused for discrepancies on first presentation. This study aims to summarize the reasons for revision of the ISBP rules and the key-points of ISBP 745, and to provide the documentary credit practitioners with some considerations under its practical application.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.429-460
• /
• 1999

The letter of credit is quintessentially international. In the absence of international legal system, a private system based on banking practices has evolved, commanding the adherence of the international letter of credit community and providing the foundation of th reputation of this instrument. To maintain this international system, it is vital that international standard banking practice should not be subject to local interpretations that misconstrue or distort it. The UCP is a formulation of international standard banking practice. It is neither positive law nor a "contract term" in any traditional sense and its interpretation must be consonant with its character as a living repositary of international understanding in this field. As a result, the interpretation and application of specific articles of the UCP must be consistent with its evolving character and history and with the principles upon which sound letter of credit practice is predicated. This study, especially, focuses on article 13 and article 14 of the UCP500. Article 13(b) of UCP500 stipulates that banks will have a reasonable time, not to exceed seven days, to examine documents to determine whether they comply facially with the terms of the credit. The seven-day provision is not designed as a safe harbor, because the rule requires the issuer to act within a reasonable time. But, by virtue of the deletion of the preclusion rule in the document examination article in UCP500, however, seven days may evolve as something of a safe harbor, especially for banks that engage in strategic behavior. True, under UCP500 banks are supposed to examine documents within a reasonable time, but there are no consequences in UCP500 for a bank's violation of that duty. It is only in the next provision. Courts might read the preclusion more broadly than the literal reading mentioned here or might fashion a common-law preclusion rule that does not require a showing of detriment. Absent that kind of development, the change in the preclusion rule could have adverse effects on the beneficiary. The penalty, strict estoppel or strict preclusion, under UCP500 and 95UCC differs from the classic estoppel. The classic estoppel rule requires a beneficiary to show three elements. 1. conduct on the part of the issuer that leads the beneficiary to believe that nonconforming documents do conform; 2. reasonable reliance by the beneficiary; and 3. detriment from that reliance. But stict preclusion rule needs not detrimental reliance. This strict estoppel rule is quite strict, and some see it as a fitting pro-beneficiary rule to counterbalance the usually pro-issuer rule of strict compliance.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.65-88
• /
• 2012

Even though there are some discrepancies in detail with the legal characteristic of the issuing bank's notice to the beneficiary of opening of the letter of credit, article 25 of "the Korean Private International Act(hereunder, 'KPIA')" can be applied to the legal relation between the issuing bank and the beneficiary or the negotiating bank. According to article 26 of the KPIA, if there is no agreement between the issuing bank and its opponent party as to the governing law issues, a state's law which has the closest relationship with the subject case may be applied. In the latter case, given the facts that the issuing bank plays important roles in every phasis of the sale of goods by the letter of credit, a law of place where the issuing bank's business premises is situated(the $lex$ $situs$) can be the applicable law. Meanwhile, "the Korean Supreme Court(hereunder 'KSC')" held that the beneficiary or the negotiating bank can claim any damages arising due to the refusal or deferred payment of the issuing bank, and the law which governs the above mentioned situation is the same law that is applicable to the legal relation between the issuing bank and the beneficiary or the negotiating bank. The main reason of the KSC's ruling is that the nature of the legitimate interest rate which is stated in article 3 of "the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition etc. of Legal Proceeding(hereunder 'ASCELP')" is substantial matters, not procedural. Taking into account, however, that the main object of ASCELP lies in expedition of legal proceeding, prompt realization of people's rights and duties, and prevention of delayed legal proceeding, it is recommendable that ASCELP, instead of the law applicable to the legal relation between the issuing bank and the beneficiary or the negotiating bank, should be applied to the cases in which the malicious debtor's only and main purpose is delaying the legal proceedings. On the other hand, even if the issuing bank's duty of examination of the documents which were tendered by the beneficiary or the negotiating bank is restricted to the formality and strict conformity of the documents and not the substantiality of the documents, the issuing bank still has to examine the documents with due diligence that is required to the banks whose main business is sales of documents, not the real goods. In this regard, under the circumstances where the document lacked the regularity and/or the formality on its face because of the forgery of the document and where it was expected that an ordinary banker might have easily found any faults with the document, the issuing bank must compensate any parties for damages when it pays money without due diligence as a banker who engaged in the sales of documents.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제16권5호
• /
• pp.87-114
• /
• 2014

ISBP는 2002년 화환신용장통일규칙(UCP 500) 하에서 ISBP645가 처음 발간된 이래, 2007년 화환신용장통일규칙이 UCP600으로 개정되자 이에 맞춰 ISBP681로 개정되었고, 다시 2013년 ISBP745가 발간된 것이다. 따라서 ISBP745는 ISBP의 세 번째 버전이자, 두 번째 개정이 되는 셈이다. ISBP의 두 번째 버전인 ISBP681은 UCP의 개정에 따른 것이나, ISBP745는 기존의 ISBP681이 시간 제약에 따라 개정보다는 업데이트 수준에 머물러 국제표준은행관행을 제대로 반영하지 못한다는 지적과 UCP600이 시행된 이후 상당한 기간이 경과되어 새로운 관행을 반영하여야 한다는 등의 개정필요성이 제기됨에 따라 UCP600하에서 다시 개정된 것이라 할 것이다. 신용장 거래에서 요구하는 서류는 매우 다양하며 ISBP745는 이와 같은 현실을 반영하여 ISBP681에서 규정한 원산지 증명서와 선적전검사증명서, 분석증명서, 검사증명서 이외에 추가적인 서류에 대하여 언급하고 이에 대한 판단근거를 제시하는 등의 추가적인 개정이 이루어졌다. 본 연구는 이러한 상황의 변화에 따라 ISBP745의 주요 개정 내용을 살펴보고, 특히 수익자증명서, 포장명세서, 중량증명서, 분석증명서, 훈증증명서 등 ISBP745에서 새롭게 추가된 서류의 심사기준과 실무적 적용에 관한 시사점을 얻고자 하였다. 또한 ISBP745에는 포함되지 않았으나 신용장 조건에서 빈번하게 요구되는 각종 증명서와 통지서 등에 대한 고찰을 통하여 신용장의 서류조건 일치에 대한 분석과 이에 따른 시사점을 도출하고자 하였다. 실무업계에서는 신용장의 문구를 세밀하게 살펴보고 신용장 조항에 나타난 다양한 선적서류들에 대한 지시사항과 ISBP 규정을 숙지하여 신용장 거래에 있어 서류불일치로 인하여 발생하는 시간과 비용의 문제들을 해결하여야 할 것이다.