• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.171-209
• /
• 2022

There were also many medical-related rulings in 2021, among which the rulings reviewed in this paper are as follows. The first relates to a case in which the medical record, which is the primary judgment data regarding the presence or absence of medical negligence, has been modified. The court judged whether there was negligence on the basis of the first written medical record without considering the contents of the medical record that was later modified. Next, the ruling on the case of asking for liability for damages for prescription of anti-obesity drugs recognized negligence related to prescription, but denied liability for property damage by denying a causal relationship, and recognized only alimony for violation of the duty of explanation. The a full-bench ruling on the scope of subrogation of the National Health Insurance Corporation, which subrogates the claims for compensation for medical expenses against the perpetrator of the patient, changed the existing precedent that had taken the 'deduction method after offsetting negligence' and judged it as 'the method of offsetting negligence after deduction'. In addition, in the ruling on whether or not there was negligence, the court was not bound by the medical record appraisal result. Lastly, in relation to the National Health Insurance Service's disposition of reimbursement for medical care benefit costs, we reviewed the ruling that discretion should be exercised even when a non-medical person makes a refund to a medical institution opened by a non-medical person. And we also reviewed the ruling that the scope of reimbursement for medical institutions jointly using facilities and manpower specifically should be determined.