• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제10권3호
• /
• pp.239-261
• /
• 2008

Documentary credit transactions are judged by the principle of strict compliance. The compliance of the tendered documents with the credit's teams ensures the proper completion of the underlying transaction. But if the documents tendered by beneficiary differ, a discrepancy of documents occurs. Such a discrepancy raises difficult problems for the bank to which the documents are tendered. It has to decide whether to reject or accept them or to accept them under a protective mechanism. Therefore, this study is to examine the case study of complying presentation of the description of the goods in documentary credit through the Korean Supreme Court Cases. The objectives of this paper are as follow : 1. To examine two point of views on document compliance such as strict compliance and substantial compliance. 2. To analyze Korean Case Law which challenges the legal conclusions, standard for examination of documents and New ISBP. 3. To draw out the criterion for conformity and discrepancy of description in invoices and WC and to provide the guidelines for determining the nature and extent of an issuing bank's duty of documentary compliance. 4. Finally to suggest some implications through the Korean case law. By using the examination standards for description of goods suggested in Korean Case Law and New ISBP, the traders will be able to prepare documentation more perfectly and document checkers will be able to examine the negotiation documents more easily.

• 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.

• 국제학술발표논문집
• /
• The 9th International Conference on Construction Engineering and Project Management
• /
• pp.67-73
• /
• 2022

Construction bid documents contain various errors or discrepancies giving rise to uncertainties. The errors/discrepancies/ambiguities in the bid document, if not identified and clarified before the bid, may cause dispute and conflict between the contracting parties. Given the fact that bid document is a major resource in estimating construction costs, inaccurate information in bid document can result in over/under estimating. Thus, any questions from bidders related to the errors in the bid document should be clarified by employers before bid submission. This study aims to examine the pre-bid queries, i.e., pre-bid request for information (RFI), from state DoTs of the United States to investigate error types most frequently encountered in bid documents. For the study, around 200 pre-bids RFI were collected from state DoTs and were classified into several error types (e.g., coordination error, errors in drawings). The analysis of the data showed that errors in bill of quantities is the most frequent error in the bid documents followed by errors in drawing. The study findings addressed uncertainty types in construction bid documents that should be checked during a bid process, and, in a broader sense, it will contribute to advancing the construction management body of knowledge by clarifying and classifying bid risk factors at an early stage of construction projects.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제42권2호
• /
• pp.205-225
• /
• 2017

본 연구는 신용장거래에서 불일치서류에 대한 은행의 지급거절통지의 절차를 한·중 판례를 중심으로 고찰한다. 한·중 무역거래 비중이 높은 상황에서 한국 기업과 신용장을 개설하는 우리나라 은행들이 서류심사 결과로서 지급거절을 통지함에 있어 주의해야 하는 사항들과 신용장 관련 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 방안에 대한 제언을 목적으로 한다. 본 연구에서 고찰한 판례는 중국 매도인이 개설은행을 상대로 중국법원에 소를 제기한 것으로, 개설은행의 지급거절통지가 UCP 600 제16조 (c)항 (ii) (iii)의 내용적인 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 판시한 중국법원의 판결이다. 본 판결을 볼 때, 우리나라 기업들과 신용장 개설은행들은 첫째, UCP 600 제16조 (c)항의 규정에 근거하여 하자에 대한 통지의 내용을 자세하게 기재해야 한다. 둘째, 신용장 계약에서도 무역계약 마찬가지로 준거법에 대한 합의를 명확히 하는 것이 필요하다. 셋째, 한·중거래에서 중국법원의 편파적인 판결과 더불어 외국법원의 판결이 중국에서 집행이 어려운 점을 감안해서 분쟁해결 방식으로 중재를 활용하는 것이다. 신용장 개설 시 중재조항을 삽입하여 법적인 효력을 갖도록 하고, 국제신용장중재센터나 DOCDEX 시스템을 활용하는 것을 권고한다.

• 한국건설관리학회논문집
• /
• 제2권1호
• /
• pp.78-87
• /
• 2001

최근 들어 설계서의 누락, 오류 및 불분명과 관련된 클레임이 급증하고 있으며, 다양한 건설분쟁해결방법이 모색되고 있다. 그러나 대부분의 시공자들은 발주자가 제시하는 클레임조정결과의 내용이 건설현장을 적절히 반영하지 못하였음을 이유로 이를 받아들이지 아니하고 있는 실정이다. 본 연구의 목적은 계약당사자의 책임 및 건설 클레임을 분석한 후 공공공사의 입찰 및 계약제도의 개선방안을 제시하는데 있다. 본 연구 결과 클레임을 최소화하기 위한 방안을 요약하면 다음과 같다. (1) 반복공사에서는 표준도 축적 및 재활용되어야 하고 발주자별로 특화된 시방서가 활용되어야 한다. (2) 설계자의 한계를 초과하는 부분에 대해서는 전문가책임보험제도가 도입되어야 한다. (3) 도면에 대한 개념이 구체화되어야 한다. (4) 설계업무대가기준이 정립되어야 한다. (5) 다양한 계약체계가 확립되어야 한다.

• 한국멀티미디어학회논문지
• /
• 제10권12호
• /
• pp.1539-1550
• /
• 2007

As XML is increasingly used for representing and exchanging data, relational database systems have been trying extend their features to handle XML documents XML documents can be stored in a column with XML data type like primitive types. The shredding method, which is one of the traditional methods for storing and managing XML documents in RDBMS, is still useful and viable although it has some drawbacks due to the structural discrepancy between XML and relational databases. This method may be suitable for data-centric XML documents with simple schema. This paper presents the extended version of the Association inlining method that is based on inlined shredding and compares the performance of querying processing to that of XML type method of conventional relational database systems. The experiments showed that in most cases our method resulted in better performance than the other method based on XML data type. This is due to the fact that our shredding method keeps and uses the order and path information of XML documents. The path table has the information of the corresponding table and column for each distinct path and the structure information of the XML document is extracted and stored in data tables.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제47권
• /
• pp.49-78
• /
• 2010

The seller has to deliver goods and hand over documents as required by the contract. It is very important that ownership of goods shall be transferred by the documents from the seller to the buyer. Where terms of payments is made under documentary payment such as negotiable order Bill of lading or any transport documents for symbolic delivery of goods shall be more important between the parties concerned. The buyer may withdraw or cancel the contract where the buyer accept the foul Bill of Lading and demand damages where the buyer accept the other documents which are not in accordance with requirements by the buyer. Withdraw or cancel of contract can be made where discrepancy of documents comes into fundamental breach of contract. In conclusion transport documents by the seller will be used to determine appropriation of transport document to the contract. Therefore the seller has to deliver the proper shipping documents to the buyer. Where the breach of the seller's obligations to deliver documents the buyer has the right of requiring performance, contract avoided, claiming damage to recover the contract under CISG. The significance of transport documents has been focused in this study and careful examination of documents shall be needed to prevent any dispute or differences between the parties.

• 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.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.293-322
• /
• 1998

General Administrative Procedures of the Preshipment Inspection 1. Initial notification Preshipment Inspection is initiated by Agency when it receives notice either from the importing country, or the seller, that an export needs to be imspected 1.1 Notice from the importing country 1.2 Notice from the seller 2. Preliminary price verification After receipt of initial notification, Agency undertakes, Where possible, a preliminary price verification, based upon the Inspection Order and other contractual documents received. 3. Customs classification When required by the Government of the importing country. Agency forms an opinion of the Customs Classification Code based upon the Customs Tariff Book and Rules of Classification of the country of importation. The Customs Classification Code determines the tariff rate on the basis of which the importer will be required to pay import duties. 4. Import eligibility 5. Arrangements for physical inspection 5.1 Inspection request from seller 5.2 Place of inspection 5.3 Date of inspection 5.4 Physical inspection procedures 6. Physical inspection results When the physical inspection is completed, the inspector submits his report to the Agency office and the result of inspection will be communicated to the seller and, where applicable, the place of inspection. The result will state: satisfactory or conditional of unsatisfactory. The seller is welcome to present his views in writting to Agency in the event there is any query regarding the issuance of a conditional of unsatisfactory inspection result. 6.1 Satisfactory 6.2 Conditional 6.3 Unsatisfactory 7. Shipment of the goods The seller is advised to check with Agency prior to shipment if the physical inspection result has not been received or there are any doubts concerning whether a Clean Report of Findings will be issued. 8. Final price verification and classification Based on the results of physical inspection and appropriate final documents, Agency finalises the price verification and the Agency opinion of Customs classification code. When the preliminary price verification has not resulted in any unresolved questions and the inspection result and other documents received are consistent with the preliminary documentation, Agency will not normally require any additional information. The main exception would be if the terms of sale require reference to prices at the date of shipment. 9. The Report of Findings 9.1 Types of Reports of Findings - Clean Reports of Findings(CRF) The Agency will issue a Clean Reports of Findings(CRF), or equivalent document, normally within two working days after receipt of the necessary correct final documents and a satisfactory result in all aspects of the inspection. - Discrepancy Report.