• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2009

This paper aims at assessing reasonableness for restraining the independence principle in the operation of documentary credit in case of the illegality appeared in the underlying transactions. It has been a major rule under the independence principle to keep the credit operation free from the defences made by the issuing bank and/or credit applicant with a view to prevent the payment as specified under the credit. And also, it is generally accepted in the international commercial community to examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the document alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. Even though these two essences are major rules in the credit operation, if a presentation is made with the documents forged or materially fraudulent, the issuing bank can refuse to pay the documents in respect of fraud rule based on fraud exception for which a court of appropriate jurisdiction would enjoin such honour. Now we have newly come to another situation to determine whether or not we have to apply the same as fraud rule which is applicable to the illegality in the underlying contract under the new conception of illegality principle based on illegality exception. English Commercial Court handled the illegality case under the case of Mahonia Ltd., v. JP Morgan Chase Bank in 2003 and Justice Colman decided that issuing bank can rely on illegality affecting a letter of credit as an excuse for failure to pay. This judgement brought about the acceptance of illegality principle based on illegality exception as a defence to payment under a letter of credit as far as the illegality concerned in the underlying transactions. It is noticeable that this case will affect our international commercial community more to rely on the illegality in the underlying transactions as a good issue to stop payment for the issuing bank in the L/C operation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권2호
• /
• pp.45-64
• /
• 2024

In international transactions, a demand guarantee is commonly used as a so-called independent bank guarantee to protect against the other party's default under, or breach of, contract). However, there is a risk that the independence and the documentary character of the demand guarantee may be abused by the beneficiary of the guarantee, who may fall into the temptation to demand or call for payment under the guarantee by preparing documents that appear to constitute a complying demand for payment, even though the demand has no conceivable basis. In Korea, through case law, a legal rule has been developed to prevent such abusive calls for payment. This paper examines how such rule that prohibits abuse of rights is applying in the context of counter-guarantees. To this end, this paper first considers the concepts of a demand guarantee and a counter-guarantee and the basic legal principles applicable thereto. And then this paper considers abusive calls under the guarantees, that exceptionally works as grounds for refusal of payment by guarantors and counter-guarantors, further looking at some situations in which the calls amount to be abusive under counter-guarantees in particular.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.323-352
• /
• 1998

Documentary letters of credit including standby letters of credit are governed by the independence or abstraction rule and the doctrine of strict compliance. Since the former rule requires the issuing bank to honor the drafts regardless of the defective performance of the underlying contract, the applicant(the customer) will be without a remedy if he is unable to make himself whole by litigation on the underlying contract. Therefore, the applicant is exposed to a risk much higher than in the commercial letters of credit. The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit(UCP) has no provisions allowing legal relief for the applicant on the abuse of L/C by unscrupulous beneficiary, but UCC ${\S}5-114$ has provision allowing injunctive relief for the applicant. In this paper, I attempted to clarify certain standards of injunctive relief available for the customer in the credit. When there is fraud in the L/C transaction by any of the parties concerned, we must weigh the principle of independence or abstraction and the fraud rules. According to banking practice and judicial precedence, we need not keep the principle of independence and abstaction even in fraudulent transaction and the bona fide sufferer must be protected. The purpose of this paper is to review the studies of Fraud rule and the Injunction and to suggest the applicable standards for the Injunction therory under letters of credit. Specially this paper analysed the following ; (1) the guideline for the fraud (exception) rule to the autonomy principle, (2) the appilcable standards of the Injunction, and (3) the implications on parties concerned in letters of credit transaction. Conclusively, the Injunction should be granted if (1) there is clear proof of fraud (2) the fraud constitutes fraudulent abuse if the independent purpose of L/C (3) irreparble injury might follow if injunction is not granted or the recovery of damages would be seriously endangered.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2016

국제상사중재는 <국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약>을 적용하는 중요한 영역이고 본 협약이 국제 통일법적인 역할을 발휘하는데 중요한 지원을 제공하고 있습니다. 중국국제 경제무역중재위원회(CIETAC)는 협약을 가장 많이 적용하여 중재사건을 해결하는 중재위원회이다. 중재재판소는 체약국 법원과 마찬가지로 협약내용을 정확하게 이해하고 정확하게 적용함으로써 사건재판의 질을 제고하고 판결의 공신력을 강화한다. 하지만 중재재판소의 민간성과 독립성으로 인하여 재판소가 협약을 적용하는 법률기초는 소재국 국내 중재법, 중재절차 및 국제중재관례이고, 소재국이 협약을 이행함에 있어서의 국제조약의무가 아니다. 협약과 중국 계약법은 CIETAC 중재재판소가 주요하게 적용하는 법률이다. 중국 계약법 규정에는 협약 제75조, 76조의 내용에 해당하는 차액배상제도가 존재하지 않기 때문에, 판사와 중재재판소는 손해배상금을 확정함에 있어서 보다 많은 자유재량권을 가지므로 협약을 적용하는 것과 중국 계약법을 적용하는 것은 당사자에게 서로 다른 영향을 일으킨다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.213-238
• /
• 2006

Deferred payment letter of credit is the L/C that makes the issuing bank to pay a beneficiary at maturity stipulated in the credit. In this deferred payment letter of credit transaction, is it possible that a confirming or nominating bank payor negotiate before maturity? and the confirming or nominating bank have legal protection when paid or negotiated before maturity? These problems are raised in argument. By the way, Korea, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy are positive on the above question, but France, United Kingdom, and Singapore are negative. Therefore, when using deferred payment letter of credit, it is required to keep in mind that the understanding of maturity stipulated in the credit is different among countries, legal principles of each nations, and researchers. And other problems are raised also as follows; the application of Fraud Rule and principle of independence and abstraction as nature of credit, when to pay credit amount to beneficiary, and refusal of payment due to poor quality. Finally, it is required to use deferred payment letter of credit, after full understanding of deferred payment letter of credit pointed out in this paper.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2011

This paper is to analyze the legality in which the fraud rule allow the issuer of L/C or a court to disrupt the payment to the beneficiary under the deferred payment credit when the nominated bank for deferred payment undertaking made prepayment or negotiation before the maturity date and fraud is identified to be involved. Since the function of commercial L/C is to provide absolute assurance of payment to a beneficiary, the fraud rule based on fraud exception has been known as the negative factor which lead to the disruption of "principle of independence & abstraction" under the commercial L/C transactions. As a result, the fraud rule is necessary to limit the activities of fraudsters, but its scope must be carefully circumscribed so as not to deny commercial utility to an instrument that exists to serve as an assurance of payment. But the fraud itself has not been firmly established because it is inherently pliable in its concept. There are numerous contents to describe the application of fraud to the L/C transactions as a standard such as egregious fraud, intentional fraud, L/C fraud(omitted here), flexible fraud, and constructive fraud. And so the standard applicable to the commercial transaction as the fraud rule would be high or low depending upon the various standards of fraud.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.29-60
• /
• 2004

Recently stand-by credits are using as surety devices in various global business transactions including sale of goods. Stand-by credits have lots of merits but simultaneously have high possibility of improper demand by the beneficiary due to the characteristics of the documents required. So so-called fraud rule has developed as a solution to the improper demand in letter of credit transactions. And the actual way of the fraud rule is the injunction by the competent court. The purpose of this article is to examine the applicability of the injunction in stand-by credit transactions by means of case studies. For this purpose, the author examined the concept of the injunction, necessity of the injunction in stand-by credit transactions and the cases of injunction granted and injunction denied. Firstly, the courts have legal standard of the application of injunction due to the legislation of the relative articles in the United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit and the Uniform Commercial Code. Secondly, the courts have taken a negative attitude granting injunction in order to observe the independence principle. Thirdly, the courts have a tendency to grant injunction when the demand has no conceivable basis and the applicant will suffer irreparable injury without injunction. Finally, like the saying 'prevention is the best cure', the applicant always pays attention with reasonable care before improper demand by the beneficiary.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.53-85
• /
• 2022

Small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") are vulnerable to trade secret misappropriation. Korea's legislation for the protection of SMEs' trade secrets and provision of civil, criminal, and administrative remedies includes the SME Technology Protection Act, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Industrial Technology Protection Act, the Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act, and the Subcontracting Act. Among these acts, the revised SME Technology Protection Act of 2018 introduced the "administrative technology misappropriation investigation system" to facilitate a rapid resolution of SMEs' technology misappropriation disputes. On September 27, 2021, Korea's Ministry of SMEs announced that it had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute between Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samyeong Machinery through the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system. However, not until 3 years and a few months passed since the introduction of the system could it be used to resolve an SME's technology misappropriation dispute with a large corporation. So there arose a question on the usefulness of the system. Therefore, we conducted a comparative legal analysis of Korea's laws enacted to protect trade secrets of SMEs and to address technology misappropriation, focusing on their legislative purpose, protected subject matter, types of misappropriation, and legal remedies. Then we analyzed the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system and the cases where this system was applied. We developed a proposal to enhance the usefulness of the system. The expert interviews of 4 attorneys who are experienced in the management of the system to check the practical value of the proposal. Our analysis shows that the lack of compulsory investigation and criminal sanctions is the fundamental limitation of the system. We propose revising the SME Technology Protection Act to provide correction orders, criminal sanctions, and compulsory investigation. We also propose training professional workforces to conduct digital forensics, enabling terminated SMEs to utilize the system, and assuring independence and fairness of the mediation and arbitration of the technology misappropriation disputes.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• pp.133-160
• /
• 2009

In International trade the buyer and seller are normally separated from on another not only by distance but also by differences in language and culture. It is rarely possible for the performance of obligations to be simultaneous and the performance of contracts therefore calls for trust in a situation in which the parties are unlikely to feel able to trust each other unless they have a longstanding and successful relationship. Thus the seller under an international contract of sale will not wish to surrender documents of title to goods to the buyer until he has at least an assurance of payment, and no buyer will wish to pay for goods until he has received them. A gap of distrust thus exists which is often bridged by the undertaking of an intermediary known and trusted by both parties who will undertake on his own liability to pay the seller the contract price in return for the documents of title and then pass the documents to the buyer in return for the reimbursement. This is a common explanation of the theory behind the documentary letter of credit in which the undertaking of a bank of international repute serves as a "guarantee" to each party that the other will perform his obligations. The independence principle, also referred to as the "autonomy principle", is at the core of letter of credit or bank guarantee law. This principle provides that the letter of credit or bank guarantee is independent of the underlying contractual commitment - that is, the transaction that the credit is intented to secure - between the applicant and the beneficiary ; the credit is also independent of the relationship between the bank and its customer, the applicant. The most important exception to the independence principle is the doctrine of fraud in the transaction. A strict interpretation of the rule that the guarantee is independent of the underlying transaction would lead to the conclusion that neither fraud nor manifest abuse of rights by the beneficiary would constitute an objection to payment. There is one major problem related to "Independent guarantees", namely abusive or unfair callings. The beneficiary may make an unfair calling under the guarantee. The countermeasure of beneficiary's unfair calling divided three cases. First, advance countermeasure namely by contract. In other words, when the formation of the contract, the parties must insert the Force Majeure Clause, Arbitration Clause to Contract, and clear statement to the condition for demand calling. Second, post countermeasure namely by court. Many countries, including the United States, authorize the courts to grant an order enjoining the issuer from paying or enjoining the beneficiary from receiving payment under the guaranty letter. Third, Export Insurance. For example, the Export Credit Guarantees Department is prepared, subject to certain conditions, to cover the risk of unfair calling. Of course, KEIC in Korea is cover the risk of the all things for guarantees. On international projects, contractor performance is usually guaranteed by either a standby letters of credit or Independent guarantee. These instruments will be care the parties.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.261-301
• /
• 2016

Recently the abusive calls on on-demand bonds have been a critical issue among many engineering and construction companies in Korea. On-demand bond is referred to as an independent guarantee in the sense that the guarantee is independent from its underlying contract although it was issued based on such underlying contract. For this reason, the issuing bank is not required to and/or entitled to look into whether there really is a breach of underlying contract in relation to the call on demand-bonds. Due to this kind of principle of independence, the applicant has to run the risk of the on demand bond being called by the beneficiary without due grounds. Only where the call proves to be fraudulent or abusive in a very clear way, the issuing bank would not be obligated to pay the bond proceeds for the call on on-demand bonds. In order to prevent the issuing bank from paying the proceeds under the on-demand bond, the applicant usually files with its competent court an application for injunction prohibiting the beneficiary from calling against the issuing bank. However, it is in practice difficult for the applicant to prove the beneficiary's call on the bond to be fraudulent since the courts in almost all the jurisdictions of advanced countries require very strict and objective evidences such as the documents which were signed by the owner (beneficiary) or any other third party like the engineer. There is another way of preventing the beneficiary from calling on the bond, which is often utilized especially in the United Kingdom or Western European countries such as Germany. Based upon the underlying contract, the contractor which is at the same time the applicant of on-demand bond requests the court to order the owner (the beneficiary) not to call on the bond. In this case, there apparently seems to be no reason why the court should apply the strict fraud rule to determine whether to grant an injunction in that the underlying legal relationship was created based on a construction contract rather than a bond. However, in most jurisdictions except for United Kingdom and Singapore, the court also applies the strict fraud rule on the ground that the parties promised to make the on-demand bond issued under the construction contract. This kind of injunction is highly unlikely to be utilized on the international level because it is very difficult in normal situations to establish the international jurisdiction towards the beneficiary which will be usually located outside the jurisdiction of the relevant court. This kind of injunction ordering the owner not to call on the bond can be rendered by the arbitrator as well even though the arbitrator has no coercive power for the owner to follow it. Normally there would be no arbitral tribunal existing at the time of the bond being called. In this case, the emergency arbitrator which most of the international arbitration rules such as ICC, LCIA and SIAC, etc. adopt can be utilized. Finally, the contractor can block the issuing bank from paying the bond proceeds by way of a provisional attachment in case where it also has rights to claim some unpaid interim payments or damages. This is the preservative measure under civil law system, which the lawyers from common law system are not familiar with. As explained in this article, it is very difficult to block the issuing bank from paying in response to the bond call by the beneficiary even if the call has no valid ground under the underlying construction contract. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicants who are normally engineering and construction companies to be prudent to make on-demand bonds issued. They need to take into account the creditability of the project owner as well as trustworthiness of the judiciary system of the country where the owner is domiciled.