• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.287-309
• /
• 2009

There were many changes regarding Negotiation of document under UCP 600. First of all, the definition of Negotiation was changed. The UCP 500 stated "Negotiation means the giving of value for drafts and documents by the bank authorized to negotiation", but the UCP 600 defines "negotiation" as following "negotiation means the purchase by the nominated bank of drafts and/or documents under a complying presentation". Under the UCP 600 the meaning of negotiation was more clear than UCP 500. Second UCP 600 permits all deferred payment credits be discountable or negotiable. This amended rule equated the deferred payment credit with banker's acceptance credit which was contrary with the nature and the practice of former deferred payment credit transaction. Third, UCP 600 has also provided for reimbursement rights for nominated banks and a conceptual basis for protecting nominated banks against beneficiary fraud. In this paper, the problems regarding negotiation of document under UCP600 was studied and the solutions for the problems occurring in appling UCP 600 in practical field was provided.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.35-53
• /
• 2010

In connection with a non-cash payment through the banking system, "finality of payment" has acquired diverse meanings. In according to Section 4A-209(2), the acceptance by the beneficiary's bank by means of receiving payment "pursuant to section 4A-403(a)(1) or 4A-403(a)(2)," constitutes final settlement through a Federal Reserve Bank or through a funds-transfer system" or credit to the account of the beneficiary's bank. Above of all, Acceptance by beneficiary's bank is the most important. According to 4A-209(b), the beneficiary's bank can accept a payment order in one of four ways : First, by paying the beneficiary; obligating itself to pay the beneficiary or, Second, by notifying the beneficiary of receipt of the order or notifying the beneficiary that its account was credited or, Thirdly, by receiving full payment from the sender's order or Lastly, by passage of time, i.e., the opening of the next funds transfer business day of the bank following the payment date of the order. A beneficiary's bank is considered to have accepted a payment order when the earliest of the four means of acceptance occurs.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.143-175
• /
• 2008

The documentary letter of credit is the most preferred and frequently used method in International Payment System in Korea, as it has less possibility of occurring credit risks in export than any other payment system. That's because the exporter can get payment from the issuing bank(confirming bank) by delivering the goods and presenting documents following the required procedure under the letter of credit, as the payment is affirmed by the issuing bank(including the confirming bank in case of the confirmed letter of credit) regardless of the buyer's payment. However, the pattern of payment methods used in international trade of Korea is changing dramatically like the importance of the credit is decreasing continuously among the payment methods while the remittance is increasing. The increase of remittance has a positive aspect that International Payment System are changing into those of advanced countries, but the decrease of the credit also has a negative aspect that the exporter might have a greater credit risks. Therefore, we need a systematic device to deal with this. Exporters in Korea usually have used the export credit insurance to deal with the credit risks However, the export credit insurance also have a limitation as the policy finance due to the limitation based on the credit status of the business and the limitation of acceptance from the lack of financial resources of the government, etc. Korea, which is the 11th export power in the world, has a basic limitation to deal with the credit risks by depending on the export credit insurance only. So, in this thesis, I have studied on the international factoring, forfaiting, which are advanced export finances and widely used in advanced countries, as substitutes to deal with the credit risks. the international factoring is an trade financing in which a factor offers full services such as credit cover, offering prepayment, collection, account receivables, management, etc, instead of the exporter on the account receivables occurred by the exporter's delivering goods to the importer. This international factoring has a high possibility of using as a means to deal with the credit risks, because it offers prepayment without recourse. the forfaiting is another export financing in which a forfaiter purchases the draft, the promissory note and other negotiable instruments issued from the international trade, with fixed interest rate without recourse from the exporter or previous holder. By using this method, they can avoid foreign exchange risks, contingency risks as well as credit risks, as the conveyances like the promissory note, etc are issued with the note warranty so-called 'per aval' in business practice. These trade financing are good substitutes to deal with the credit risks in export, but they are not widely used in Korea. Though it can be explained with various reasons, the common reasons are the lack of understanding on the use of advanced export finance, the lack of experts to manage the advanced trade finance, the conservative way of thinking of domestic organizations related to trade financing, the lack of organizations supporting the trade financing, etc.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.515-536
• /
• 2000

This study analyzes the U.S. case law which challenges the legal conclusions of the district court with respect to the applicability, and effect, of the doctrine of waiver and estoppel in addition to the doctrine of documentary cure. The impliations are as follows. First, the documentary cure requirement can not be interpreted to mean early enough to allow the beneficiary to cure and represent the documents before the presentment deadline or expiry date of letter of credit. The mere fact that the presentment period expired before the completion of bank's review and notification process does not compel any conclusion about whether the examiner spent a reasonable amount of time examining the documents. Indeed, the reasonable time requirement does not imply that banks examine a presentation out of order or hurry a decision based upon particular needs or desires of a beneficiary. Secondly, even if the doctrine of waiver can apply to letter of credit governed by the strict compliance standard, a one-time acceptance of discrepant documents by a bank does not waive the bank's right to insist upon conforming documents in all subsequent letter of credit transactions between the bank and beneficiary. Revised UCC Article 5 is highly persuasive on this point: waiver of discrepancies by issuer or an applicant in one or more presentation does not waive similar discrepancies in a future presentation. Neither the issuer nor the beneficiary can reasonably rely upon honor over past waivers as a basis for concluding that a future defective presentation will justify honor.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.433-456
• /
• 2012

The confirming bank undertakes to make payment to the beneficiary, provided that a complying presentation is made and complies with its confirmation. In case L/C fraud is evident, though, the confirming bank as well as the issuing bank does not have the obligation to make payment. That is, the confirming bank does not take the risks involving documentary fraud. The confirming bank cannot exercise the right to recourse toward the beneficiary or the nominated bank when the issuing bank finds the discrepancies which the confirming bank has not noticed. This is because under UCP600, the issuing bank or the confirming bank cannot refuse to make payment with the cause of documentary discrepancy after 5 banking days following the presentation of documents. Even if the issuing bank accepts the discrepant documents following the confirming bank's request to do so, the confirming bank does not have the responsibility for the confirmation. When under Usance Negotiation Credit, the confirming bank acts as the nominated bank, the confirming bank should make payment in no time if the beneficiary presents complying documents. Therefore, unless the confirming bank intends to make immediate payment, they should consider using Deferred Payment or Acceptance L/C in Usance Credit. It is also safer for the beneficiary to have the reimbursing bank's undertaking to the reimbursement than just have confirmation of the credit because in the latter case they may not have full payment due to disputes regarding discrepancies of the documents even if they have confirmation of the credit.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2023

Purpose - The bank payment obligation is a transaction method that combines the certainty of L/C transactions with the speed of remittance payments, so the main purpose of this study is to highlight the superiority of bank payment obligation, noting the difference between bank payment obligation and L/C transactions. In addition, we would like to examine how bank payment obligations can actually be applied to support various valuable proposals such as post-shipment and post-shipment finance according to the payment process.. Design/methodology - This study focused on literature based on data from ICC and SWIFT along with previous domestic and international studies. In terms of a research method, a literature review was adopted with electronic trade-related books and journals and policy-related reports from international trade-related agencies. Findings - Unlike L/C transaction, BPO transaction verify the data inquiry process based only on the combination result of the established baseline and dataset. Accordingly, it is superior to L/C transaction in that there is no confrontation between the parties over the results of the inquiry, and clear transactions are possible according to the principle of proof after prepayment. In addition, unlike credit transactions, data inconsistency acceptance procedures confirm payment obligations in consideration of importers' intentions. As a result, as long as trade documents are in the hands of exporting countries, flexible document disposition is possible in response to the situation after payment, which is more advantageous than L/C transaction. Originality/value - Specifically, from the importer's point of view, BPO transactions have the advantage of reducing the manpower required to prepare and review trade documents and processing transaction negotiations with exporters advantageously due to the strength of payment obligations. From the perspective of the exporter, it has the advantage of enabling rapid recovery of trade payments and reducing the risk of importer's cancellation of transactions or content change. From the perspective of participating banks, it is possible to strengthen relations with importer and obtain high commission income by increasing the role of bank reduced by reducing L/C transaction.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The UCP is recognized as the governing law for L/C transactions, but it covers only the general details of the transaction and does not cover all complex practices. In view of this limitation, this paper examines a negotiation transaction which is most actively utilized in L/C transactions via a thorough review of the UCP provisions, analyzes the problems of the negotiation clause in the UCP, and suggests appropriate countermeasures to deal with unnecessary litigation costs. By doing so, the parties involved in the negotiation transaction would be able to avoid financial costs such as having to pay for lawsuits. Design/methodology - The present study first differentiates the general types of L/Cs (e.g., sight payment L/C, deferred payment L/C, acceptance L/C, and negotiation L/C), explains and the Article 2 and Article 12(b) of the UCP 600 where the term 'negotiation' is used, digs into the drawbacks of 'negotiation' occurring under the UCP 600, and discusses solutions to the problems found by analyzing the drawbacks descriptively. Findings - After a review of the UCP provisions on negotiation in detail, several possible problems which may occur in practice were discovered. First, as the UCP stipulates, the negotiating bank will want to delay payment to the maximum extent possible and make payment on the banking day on which the issuing bank reimburses the amount. This may lead the beneficiary towards bankruptcy or put it in financial crisis. Second, when a fraudulent transaction occurs, the negotiating bank can neither request the issuing bank to reimburse nor can it exercise its recourse right against the beneficiary because it has obtained all the rights of the beneficiary by purchasing the documents. Third, there is a practice in which the beneficiary sells the documents to its transaction bank which is not the nominated bank if the nominated bank specified in the credit is located in a third country or the exporter has no relationship with the nominated bank in the credit. In this case, whether to accept this and reimburse the non-nominated negotiating bank entirely depends on the issuing bank's decision even though such practice frequently occurs in Korea. Originality/value - There has been little research effort pertaining to negotiation transactions in detail even though negotiation L/C transactions account for around 70% in world trade notwithstanding deferred payment L/Cs and acceptance L/Cs that are also negotiated in practice. Thus, if the negotiations clause under the UCP 600 provisions were reviewed and the drawbacks of the negotiation transactions most actively used in L/C transactions were identified and examined, specific countermeasures could ultimately help smoothen the operation of L/C transactions and prevent financial losses.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.141-175
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study aims to the implications by the introduction of TSU/BPO system as a instrument of trade settlement. Jointly with financial messaging provider SWIFT, the ICC Banking Commission has developed the URBPO to take into account the legitimate expectations of all relevant sectors. Once the goods have been shipped, the seller's bank uploads the shipping and logistics data to the TSU to be checked against the baseline. URBPO is the first ever set of standards in supply chain finance that governs BPO transactions worldwide. BPO enables banks to reduce the risks associated with international trade to the benefit of both buyers and sellers. A BPO is an irrevocable undertaking given by an Obliger Bank to a Recipient Bank to pay a specified amount under the condition of a successful electronic matching of data or acceptance of mismatches. The BPO should be viewed as an exercise in collaboration between trading partners and their banks. Drawings upon global standards and incorporating the benefits offered by letters of credit, the new instrument has the potential to benefit all parties in a trade transaction-and bring trade settlement into the 21st century.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.15
• /
• pp.59-87
• /
• 2001

In recent years electronic fund transfers covered by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act 1978 for consumer protection and the Article 4A of Uniform Commercial Code(U.C.C.) 1989 for wholesale electronic payments in United States. Electronic fund transfers carried out by use of a wire transfer network, automated clearing house, or other communication system of a clearing house or other association of banks such as direct deposit, Fedwire, automated teller machine, point-of-sale, and credit card transactions have been increasingly common in consumer transactions and wholesale transactions. Especially, the Article 4A of U.C.C. governs the rights and obligations associated with transactions such as an issue and acceptance of payment order, execution of sender's payment order by receiving bank, and payment. These legal frameworks in connection with electronic fund transfers in United States can play a leading role in establishing model not only within the United States, but also as a basis for developments of electronic commerce law in Korea including other countries.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2023

The seller and the buyer write down the agreed details in the trade contract as trade contract clauses. In the case where a letter of credit is agreed to be the payment condition, the buyer shall open a letter of credit to the seller with the shipping date specified in the trade contract through its bank. In this case, the legal relationship between the performance date of the trade contract and the shipment date of the letter of credit, the change of the performance date of the trade contract due to the change of the trade contract and the change of the shipment date specified in the letter of credit, the seller's letter of credit A problem arises in the legal interpretation of the approval period and the change request period. Therefore, this paper analyzed the precedents of the Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court and the Seoul High Court related to these legal issues. The performance date of a trade contract is the seller's delivery date and the buyer's payment date. In the letter of credit transaction, the date of performance of the trade contract is regarded as the date of shipment and the date of negotiation of documents specified in the letter of credit. The seller must decide whether to accept the letter of credit within 5 banking days after receiving the letter of credit from the buyer. After this period has elapsed, the seller cannot refuse the letter of credit. However, if the buyer is unable to decide whether to accept the letter of credit within 5 banking days due to reasons attributable to the buyer, the delivery date specified in the letter of credit will be extended. If the seller requests an amendment to the letter of credit, the buyer must accept it and open the letter of credit the seller desires to the seller. If the buyer refuses the seller's request to change the letter of credit, company A has the obligation to change and reopen the letter of credit as requested by company B. Expect by agreeing on the quotation As it is a fundamental breach of contract stipulated in Article 25 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, company B can cancel the trade contract and claim damages from company A. Compensation for damages caused by Company A's breach of the trade contract shall be an amount equal to the loss suffered by Company B as a result of the breach, including loss of profits.