• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.25-50
• /
• 2018

It is an undeniable fact that the counter-guarantees are always exposed to wrongful or fraudulent demands for payment due to its institutional hallmarks and simplicity. Generally counter-guarantees are payable by presenting a written statement indicating that the local guarantor was in receipt of the beneficiary's statement that the principal was in breach of the underlying contract without any proof of any default. No proof of actual payment of guarantee is required. These matters may lead to numerous disputes or conflicts between the parties concerned. These problems raise may legal issues such as a guarantor(or a counter-guarantor)'s dishonor, the wrongful or fraudulent demands for payment, and the fraudulent conspiracy or the acquiescence of the local guarantor in the course of the procedural demand for payment. On the other hand, the guarantor's dishonor or an injunction are sometimes misused as dispute resolution method between parties involved. Therefore, this research analyzed the guarantor's wrongful dishonor and related issues such as an injunction, fraud exception, and others under the counter-guarantee regime focusing on the relevant cases. This paper also suggested practical implications and countermeasures from a business point of view.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.213-239
• /
• 2011

This article examines two important issues of the demand for payment by the beneficiary and the payment by the guarantor to the beneficiary under the revised Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantee (URDG) published by ICC, which are called URDG 758 and effected on July 1, 2010. Here, after first briefly defining the concept and nature of the demand for payment, this article discusses various issues surrounding the demand: By whom, where and how the demand has to be made; which documents are required in demanding the payment; how much amount can be demanded and paid; when and where the payment has to be made and which currency has to be used for the payment. The demand for payment has to be made by the beneficiary to the guarantor on or before expiry of the guarantee at the place of issuance of the guarantee unless any other place is specified in the guarantee. The demand has to be made in paper form unless the guarantee requires an electronic form. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated in the guarantee, the demand must be supported by a statement by the beneficiary indicating the applicant is in breach of the underlying contract. Also the demand must identify the guarantee under which it is made, and the time for examination by the guarantor starts on the date of identification. The demand cannot be for more than the amount available under the guarantee. When the demand is complying the guarantor must pay the amount demanded. The payment has to be made at the branch or office of the guarantor that issued the guarantee unless any other place is indicated in the guarantee. The payment has to be made in the currency specified in the guarantee, unless the guarantor is unable to make payment in that currency due to an impediment beyond its control or any illegality under the law of the place for payment. In case of "extend or pay" or "pay or extend" demands, the demand is deemed to be withdrawn if the extension is granted. But if not, the demand has to be paid without any further demand by the beneficiary.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.179-213
• /
• 2013

While a performance type guarantee is required as a security for non-performance risk by a seller, a payment guarantee is used as a security for non-payment risk by a buyer(or a borrower in a loan agreement). A payment guarantee is a type of independent bank guarantee, bank guarantee, bond, demand guarantee, or standby letter of credit. A guarantor accepts a credit risk of a principal which is normally a buyer in a contract for sale of goods. A payment guarantee is independent of the underlying relationship between the applicant and the beneficiary. The guarantor is only empowered to examine the beneficiary's demand and determine the payment on its face to the terms of the guarantee. A payment guarantee is thus different from a suretyship. The principle of independence carries a significant advantages for a guarantor as well as for a beneficiary. While a documentary credit requires B/L, commercial invoice, packing list, inspection certificate, etc., a typical payment guarantee does not require any evidence for a seller's performance of the underlying contract other than written demand. In this respect payment guarnatee can be a more secured facility than a documentary credit. A payment guarantee normally comes into force from the issuing date and shall remain in effect until all sums guaranteed shall be paid in full by a buyer(or a borrower) or by a guarantor. Although a guarantor shall pay a demand made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the payment guarantee, a payment demand may be denied when it is determined to be abusive or unfair.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.59-85
• /
• 2008

An independent bank guarantee(aka an independent guarantee) is provided as an security on a principal obligor's performance of his obligation, and a guarantor should pay the guaranteed amount only upon a beneficiary's written demand. A standby letter of credit has been used in the United States, since it was construed that a bank should not issue a guarantee. There was wide misunderstanding that a standby letter of credit differs from an independent bank guarantee. However, a standby letter of credit is the same security as an independent bank guarantee, and in international business a standby letter of credit is not differentiated from a independent bank guarantee. An independent bank guarantee are independent from the underlying contract, unconditional, and irrevocable. And a guarantor should pay upon written demand without proving a principal obligor breaches the underlying contract. These features of an independent bank guarantee has been abused in international transactions. Thus it has been proposed that some exceptions to the features of an independent bank guarantee should be allowed. United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Standby Letter of Credit(1995) stipulates some exceptions to payment obligation. Export bond insurance, a part of export insurances, operated by the Korea Export Insurance Corporation under the Export Insurance Act, is used as a security for unfair calling by a beneficiary under an independent bank guarantee. Most of the export subsides by the government are prohibited under WTO's Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. However, as export insurance is allowed under the WTO, it operates a significant role in enhancing the export. In the event that export bond insurance is provided for a guarantor, an obligor who is subject to recourse by a guarantor, can be exempt from the recourse in case of unfair calling. The Korea Export Insurance Corporation, an insurer, bears unfair calling risk by a beneficiary. Generally it is understood that a demand shall be made before the expiry of an independent bank guarantee. However this is not absolutely true, it shall be decided by URDG, ISP98, the governing law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2016

Independent guarantee is new financial product developed in international commercial transaction. The nature of independent guarantee is an independent undertaking, which takes the form of documentary transaction. As long as the documents presented by the beneficiary are on their face complying with the terms and conditions of the guarantee, the guarantor is obliged to pay upon the complying presentation. Where parties choose to apply for issue of independent guarantee in international commercial transactions in China, Chinese court shall respect the autonomy of parties. If either the guarantor or the beneficiary is located outside of China, or the facts which cause the establishment, change or cancellation of independent guarantee relationship occurred outside of China, it shall be deemed as foreign related independent guarantee. If the interested parties requests for confirmation of the independence of foreign related independent guarantee, it shall be supported by Chinese court. However, parties dealing with Chinese domestic commercial transaction have not fully realized the severity of independent guarantee liability. The market credit is being cultivated and the financial innovation is being explored at present in China. In order to guard against the systematic and the regional financial risk, before relevant rules are promulgated, Chinese court shall not recognize the independence guarantees issued for the domestic commercial transaction, but treat it as joint liability surety.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.203-223
• /
• 2005

Many international transactions involve the use of security devices, commonly referred to as "guarantees", "bonds", or "standby credits", designed to protect one of the parties from a breach by its counter-party. These security mechanisms may be provided by banks, insurance companies, specialized surety companies, or other financial service firms. Although some legal systems distinguish between "guarantees", "bonds", and "indemnities", these terms are often used as synonyms in the everyday language of international traders. It may therefore be necessary to examine the particular characteristics and nature of the guarantee obligation in order to properly classify the guarantee. Two main categories of guarantee are demand and suretyship. Under a demand guarantee, the guarantor must pay on first demand by the beneficiary. The beneficiary only has to demand payment under the guarantee - there is no need to prove that the principal has actually defaulted on a contractual obligation. Under a suretyship or conditional guarantee, the obligation of the guarantor is triggered by the actual default or contractual breach of the principal, as evidenced in a document such as a court judgement or arbitral award against the principal. Guarantees have been widely used in the international business transactions. Main uses of guarantees are as follows : Performance Bonds/Guarantees, Bid(or Tender) Bonds/Guarantees, Advance Payment or Repayment Bonds/Guarantees, Retention Bonds/Guarantees, Maintenance(or Warranty) Bonds/Guarantees etc.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.169-198
• /
• 2009

This paper sees some legal phases of the forfaiting transactions performed by using bills of exchange (drafts) or promissory notes. It focuses on the issues of the endorsement without recourse and the aval under the Korean statute for such negotiable instruments which is enacted by succeeding to the Convention Providing a Uniform Law For Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Geneva, 1930) of the League of Nations. This paper purposes to give basic legal guides for forfaiting participants in order for them to be able to prevent and solve some problems caused by lack of understanding for relevant rules of law. Forfaiting is a useful technic as it provides financing for international export businesses by enabling forfaiters to discount future payment obligations on non-recourse basis. It gives benefits to exporters by removing political, transfer and commercial risks of importers or their country. Also it protects exporters from the risks of the increase of interest rates and the fluctuation of exchange rate as well. In traditionally normal forfaiting transactions, exporter of goods generally takes promissory notes or accepted drafts from importers in payment for the price of goods. Further, when the exporter is not comfortable with the importer's credit or is not confident whether the importer will pay the accepted drafts or the promissory notes as they come due, the exporter nomally requires the importer to make the importer's bank (avalizer or guarantor) add an aval, which is made by the written expression of intention, the words of "per aval", and the guarantor's signature on the drafts or promissory notes. The exporter endorses without recourse to transfer the drafts or the promissory notes to the forfaiter, typically a bank, who purchases the drafts or the promissory notes without recourse.

• Proceedings of the Korean Operations and Management Science Society Conference
• /
• 1998.10a
• /
• pp.141-144
• /
• 1998

This paper complements the work of Courtney et al. in viewing learning organizations as inquiring systems. Hegelian inquiring systems are based on the dialectic. Dialectic can not exist without dialogue. The guarantor of this system is conflict. Hegelian inquiring systems would facilitate multiple and contradictory interpretations of reality. Hegelian synthesis of two opposing models-thesis and antithesis-is the epitome of open systems and double-loop learning. Knowledge gained from the Hegelian inquiring systems may result in an entirely new strategic direction to organizations. This paper reviews some guidelines and principles of Hegelian learning organizations and IT support of it. Also it proposes the immediate deployment of Hegelian learning organizations in the wicked business environments and finally suggests the development of new, flexible information technologies and systems for Hegelian organizations.

• 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.