• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.173-194
• /
• 2021

This study aims to derive precaution points for issuing banks in refusing payment under L/C through literature review and examination of court cases and official opinions of ICC Banking Commission with regard to the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 that stipulates obligations of issuing banks in refusing payment. If the issuing bank fails to act in accordance with this article, it shall be precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation. Therefore, it is crucial that issuing banks should be well informed of this article. When discrepant documents are presented, however, issuing banks seldom refuse payment because, in most cases, the applicants waive the discrepancies. For this reason, issuing banks have few chances to deal with payment refusal in practice and thus they occasionally end up failing to observe the provisions of the article. Such court cases include Kookmin Bank and Korean Exchange Bank (currently Hana Bank) that failed to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice losing the lawsuits. It should be noted that if issuing banks disregard the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 and thus fail to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice, they may face fatal situations in which they must make payment against discrepant documents.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2010

In letter of credit arrangements, the issuing bank nominate a reimbursing bank which serves as a source of funds payment to the beneficiary. The reimbursing bank could be 3rd party bank or the issuing bank itself. In view of working capital requirements, most beneficiary want to get export proceeds in advance through nominated banks and therefore letter of credit usually permit the beneficiary to negotiate drafts, accompanied by required documents, to nominated bank. If the credit is available with the nominated bank, there must be a reimbursement instruction in the credit, because in this method of availability the issuing bank is obliged to reimburse the nominated bank if that bank acts on its nomination There are legal relationship among issuing bank, nominated bank and reimbursing bank with regard to reimbursement activities. Related rules are UCP and URR and UCC (in case of USA). Korean exporters and bankers do not appear to know well the role of reimbursement and usage. 3 cases (court case + ICC Opinion + bad practices) were employed to study the reimbursement mechanism and suggest better usages. The beneficiary is strongly recommended to know the benefit of reimbursement claim from independent reimbursing bank. The benefits include speed payment (thereby saving finance costs) and safe funds (in case of stop payment by the issuing bank right after the proceeds are reimbursed). And further the beneficiary banks (being nominated or claim banks) are also recommended to take advantage of the 3rd party reimbursement in view of the cases illustrated.

• East Asian Journal of Business Economics (EAJBE)
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.15-28
• /
• 2021

Purpose -In the credit transaction, the issuing bank must examine the documents to pay the credit amount. In order to smoothly execute the credit transaction, document review is a key element, so the 5th revised credit unification rule specifically defines the document review procedure. Research design, data, and methodology - The document review procedure specified in the UCP Rules can be largely divided into the document review period and the rejection procedure for inconsistent documents. First of all, confusion was caused by the ambiguous regulation.. Result - With regard to the document review period, in the actual credit transaction, the issuing bank often negotiates with the issuing client about the waiver of the document inconsistency. Next, in the process of notifying the rejection of inconsistent documents, the issuing bank shall send the rejection notice. Conclusion - This study suggests that the requirement to list all inconsistencies makes it impossible for the issuing bank to further notify the refusal, thereby limiting the right to defend against inconsistencies not listed in the first refusal notice and consequently having the effect of matching them. In addition, the issuing bank's rejection notice is closely related to the beneficiary's exercise of the right to replenish documents.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.233-263
• /
• 1999

The issuing bank performs an important role than any other parties concerned in letter of credit transaction. Nonperformance of obligation by the issuing bank frustrates whole letter of credit transaction and makes serious effect on both beneficiary and applicant. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the nonperformance of obligation by the issuing bank and to present some problems and countermeasures. For this purpose, the author examines five kinds of cases on nonperformance of obligation by the issuing bank ; improper honor relating to examination of documents, improper honor not relating to examination of documents, improper dishonor relating to examination of documents, improper dishonor relating to handling procedure of documents, and improper dishonor not relevant to letter of credit transaction.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.159-177
• /
• 2010

This work intends to study some problems in relation to the issuance of letters of credit. Those problems are the delay of issuing letters of credit, the reissuing letters of credit, and the issuing letters of credit in the third party's name. Sellers and buyers must keep in mind that the supply of letter of credit by buyer is the condition precedent for a seller's shipment obligation. A seller has no obligation to ship the goods until he receives the letter of credit by buyer's bank, issuing bank. An issuing bank can have the risk that an original letter of credit and a reissued letter of credit can be used double in the exporting country. The most safe method for issuing bank is to cancel the original letter of credit and to reissue a new letter of credit. When an issuing bank issues a letter of credit in the third party's name, the bank should investigate the background of the transaction and give the buyer a proper line of credit.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.461-494
• /
• 1999

This study is to analyse the applicability of governing law in multi-party contractual relationship of letter of credit. And this study is also to suggest the limits of the possibility of applicable law in multi-party contract. The contract of letter of credit constitutes complex relationship, i.e., applicant -beneficiary, applicant-issuing bank, issuing bank-intermediary bank ect. The law applicable to letter of credit should not use a singular governing law in all credit transaction as sales contract. To solve these problems, the author analysed the law applicable to the credit under multi-party contractual relationship as follow : (1) the principle of party autonomy (2) In the absence of express agreement with regard to the law applicable to the contract, lex loci contractus, lex loci solutionis, the law intended by the parties, the law with which contract is most closely connected. Accordingly, when attempting to ascertain the law governing the credit, it should be borne in mind that the credit involves several contractual relationships. I would like to conclude as follows: 1. The contract between the applicant and the Issuing bank is to be governed by the law of the country where the contract is made, and in which the bank carries on business and has issued the credit. 2. When it comes to the beneficiary-Intermediary bank relationship the following rule is given : The liability of an intermediary bank to the seller is governed by the law the country where the intermediary bank is operating if it is acting as principal. If, however, it is acting as agent(advising bank), it will be the law of the country where his principal is situate. 3. The contract between the beneficiary and the Issuing bank is governed by the law of the country where the payment is to be performed. 4. The contract between the Issuing bank and Intermediary bank is governed by 1) the law of the issuing bank is applicable if the intermediary bank only advises the credit, 2) the law of the issuing bank is applicable but if the intermediary bank makes payment, accepts or negotiates drafts against the tender of the documents, i.e., act as the bank dffecting the payment., 3) the law of the confirming bank is applicable if the irrevocable letter of credit is confirmed by the intermediary bank

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.119-139
• /
• 2012

In the case of Banque Paribas V. Banco Santander in England for the reimbursement request of deferred payment credit by the nominated bank, the L/C-issuing bank refused to pay the proceeds at maturity because of a fraudulent transaction. The reason of refusal was that the nominated bank, Banco Santander, had no right of payment in deferred credit before its maturity if it made payment of proceeds without notice to the issuing bank, that is, payment not based upon a credit transaction but on its own account. However, in the case of ADIB V. Fortis Bank in America, the New York court made the decision that the deferred payment bank could not refuse to reimburse to the nominated bank, Fortis Bank, because of fraud. Its decision was based on the UCP600. We have analyzed and investigated the above two cases-one was an English court's decision and the other an American's. The English court's decision was made under UCP500, but the American court's was made under UCP600, which was revised in 2007. As a result, we can expect that from now on in deferred payment credit transactions, the power of the nominated bank will be greater than before, but the issuing bank will bear the risk of the beneficiary's fraud, so the issuing bank will be hesitant to issue deferred payment credit. Notwithstanding, we thought that the New York court decision would come into effect in the activation of deferred payment credit in practical trade transactions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.16
• /
• 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.