[2] Where a documentary credit condition requires a bill of lading signed by a carrier as a transport document, the method of determining whether the bill of lading satisfies the requirements under Article 20 (a) (i) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits 600s and Article 94 of the International Standard Banking Practice, and where the name indicating the carrier himself/herself is stated in the bill of lading and the name indicating the carrier himself/herself is written in the bill of lading but the text does not clearly indicate that the agent is the status of the carrier, whether the bill

[3] Where a carrier issues a bill of lading in accordance with a contract of carriage concluded with a consignor who is the beneficiary of the letter of credit, a person who is responsible for checking whether the signature portion of the bill of lading conforms to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits

[2] Article 14(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that "the nominated bank acting in accordance with the designation, the confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank shall examine the documents only on the face of the documents whether they have presented a complying presentation." Paragraph (d) of the same Article provides that "the information on the documents when read according to the context of the letter of credit, the documents itself and international standard bank practice shall not necessarily conflict with the documents or other stated documents or the information on the letter of credit, but shall not conflict with them, although it is not necessarily necessary." Therefore, if the L/C condition requires a bill of lading with the signature of the carrier as a transport document, the issuing bank must accept only the documents that meet the requirements stipulated in Article 20(a)i of the Uniform Customs and International Standard Bank Practice, as documents that comply with the above conditions, and if the bill of lading satisfies the above requirements, it is difficult to see that the bill of lading itself does not formally refer to other documents related to the relevant L/C as a carrier's agent, and therefore, it is difficult to determine the bill of lading's name and the bill of lading itself as its representative.

[3] In general, where a bill of lading is requested as one of the transport documents in credit transaction, and in that case, even if the contents of the bill of lading must comply with the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits in order to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, this is only the matter required in credit transaction between the consignor and the issuing bank, which is separate from the contract of carriage. Therefore, as a matter of principle, the consignor who is the party to the credit transaction must check whether the signature of the bill of lading conforms to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits and International Standard Banking

1. As to the second ground for appeal

A. A. Since a transaction by a credit is a document and is not a direct transaction of goods, the performance of the credit transaction is required to be strictly consistent with the conditions and form stipulated in the credit. However, if the issuing bank enters conditions different from the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) or International Standard Bank Practice for Documentary Credits (ISO) in the course of issuing the credit, it must clearly state the conditions of the credit so that the beneficiary or negotiating bank can recognize the objective meaning and purpose of the credit. If it can be interpreted that the objective meaning and purpose are unclear or ambiguous and that the requirements that are not different from the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits or International Standard Bank Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP), even if the beneficiary or negotiating bank provides the required documents, it may not refuse payment of the letter of credit on the ground that the issuing bank is inconsistent with the intent of the credit.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and evidence duly adopted, Defendant 2’s agent’s signature on the bill of credit (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) and Defendant 2’s agent’s signature on the bill of credit (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”) on February 13, 209, stating that the Plaintiff 2’s agent’s signature on the bill of credit (hereinafter “Defendant 3”) was not a shipping agent’s signature on behalf of the Plaintiff 2’s shipping agent, and on behalf of the Defendant 2’s agent, the signature or signature on the bill of credit (hereinafter “Defendant 4”) should be indicated on the 3rd LAL PEN OPEN OTR-OBD’s name on behalf of the carrier, and on behalf of the Defendant 2’s agent, the signature or signature on the bill of credit was indicated on the 6th page 2’s signature or signature on the bill of credit, and the name or signature of the master 60 U.S. agent’s signature or signature should be indicated on the bill of credit.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, ① the carrier itself (CARIER) merely requires the carrier to sign a bill of lading; ② the CARIERNF does not require the carrier itself to sign a bill of lading; ② the 6th amendment UCP and international standard banking practices applicable to the credit transaction in this case allow the carrier’s agent to sign and issue the bill of lading; ③ as long as the carrier issues the bill of lading as the bill of lading with the specified contents, there is no problem in legal relations, or any obstacle on the carrier’s agent’s exercise of the right to request delivery of the cargo; ④ there is no reasonable ground to require the carrier to issue the bill of lading with the carrier; ⑤ The demand for the carrier’s signature on the L/C in general L/C transaction in this case cannot be understood as a measure to prevent the conflict of the terms and conditions of the bill of lading by issuing the previous shipping agent, and thus, the carrier’s agent cannot be deemed to have signed the bill of lading only in light of such circumstances.

Therefore, it can be interpreted that the L/C of this case can be signed and issued by the carrier’s agent. Thus, as the L/C of this case, the L/C of this case cannot be refused to pay the L/C on the ground that the L/C of this case is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the L/C because it was signed by Defendant Orion Shipping, not by the carrier itself.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in interpreting that the L/C conditions of this case merely require the bill of lading signed by the carrier itself, and held that since Defendant Orion Shipping signed the bill of this case as an agent because the consignor and the Plaintiff, the beneficiary of the L/C of this case, did not inform the Defendants of such fact, Defendant Orion Shipping signed the bill of this case as an agent, the court below did not deem that the Defendants

Although the above explanation of the reasoning of the court below is inappropriate, as seen earlier, Defendant Orion Shipping’s signing on the bill of lading cannot be deemed to be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, and it cannot be deemed that there was any negligence or an illegal act against the Defendants. Therefore, the above determination by the court below is just in its conclusion, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

A. Article 14(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that "the designated bank acting in accordance with the designation, the confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank shall examine documents only on the basis of documents whether they have presented a complying presentation." Paragraph (d) of the same Article provides that "the information on the documents when read according to the context of the letter of credit, the documents itself, and international standard bank practice does not necessarily coincide with the documents or other stated documents or information on the letter of credit, but does not conflict with them." Therefore, if the conditions of the letter of credit require a bill of lading signed by the carrier as a transport document, the issuing bank must accept only the documents that meet the requirements provided for in Article 20(a)i of the Uniform Customs and Article 94 of the International Standard Bank Practice as documents consistent with the terms of the letter of credit, and whether the bill of credit satisfies the above requirements must be determined strictly on the basis of the text of the relevant bill of credit without referring to the descriptions on other documents related to the letter of credit, and on the basis of the text of the bill in question.

However, even if a bill of lading presented as a required document contains the name indicating the carrier himself/herself, and the agent signs it on his/her behalf, if the bill of lading does not clearly indicate that the principal is the carrier’s status on the face of the bill of lading, it is difficult to readily conclude that the issuing bank is the carrier’s status, since it is formally and strictly determined on the basis of the text of the relevant bill of lading without referring to the description of other documents related to the letter of credit. Therefore, such bill of lading cannot be deemed as strictly meeting the requirements for signature under Article 20(a)i of the Uniform Customs and Article 94 of the International Standard Banking Practice.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below and the facts as seen earlier in light of the aforementioned legal principles, although Sast is printed on the left-hand upper-hand side of the bill of lading of this case, there is no indication that Sast is a carrier. Thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that Sastast is a carrier solely on the text of the bill of this case, which is the issuing bank of this case. Therefore, the bill of this case cannot be deemed as strictly meeting the requirements for signature pursuant to Article 20(a)i of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits and Article 94 of the International Standard Bank Practice. A Saststasta Bank may refuse payment of the letter of credit on the ground that the bill of this case is inconsistent with the terms of the letter of credit of this case

B. Meanwhile, the carrier issues a bill of lading in accordance with the contract of carriage between the consignor and the issuing bank, which is separate from the L/C transaction between the consignor (beneficiary of the L/C) and the issuing bank.

As seen earlier, in the instant case where the Defendant Orion Shipping delegated the authority to issue a bill of lading from the Orion Shipping and signed the “signing for the carrier” in the form of the bill of lading in which the trade name of the Orion Shipping was printed, and the Defendant Orion Shipping stated the Orion Shipping as the carrier’s vessel and issued the instant bill of lading, even though there is no express indication that the Orion is the carrier’s status, the holder of the instant bill of lading can be seen as the carrier under the instant bill of lading based on the form of the instant bill of lading, the printed trade name of the Orion, and the name of the carrier, etc., and if necessary, it can be confirmed by inquiring the Defendant Orion Shipping, etc., and thus, there is no obstacle to exercising the right to claim the delivery of the instant cargo against the Orion Shipping.

Even if the contents of a bill of lading must comply with the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits and International Standard Bank Practice in order to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit in the L/C transaction, this is only the matter required in L/C transaction between the consignor and the issuing bank, which is separate from the contract of carriage. Therefore, in principle, the consignor who is the party to the L/C transaction must check whether the contents of the bill of lading conform to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits and International Standard Bank Practice for Documentary Credits and take measures such as requesting the carrier,

Furthermore, there is no evidence supporting that the carrier or its agent at the time of the issuance of the instant bill of lading was aware of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Standard Bank Practice, etc., and issued the bill of lading in the form of the shipping industry practice, and that taking such measures in the carrier’s side without any separate agreement constitutes the content of the contractual obligation under the contract of carriage. Rather, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant Orion Shipping issued 76 copies of the bill of lading, using the same form as the instant bill of lading, signed by the agent in the same manner as the instant bill of lading between June 30, 208 and February 2009, and the Plaintiff, Korea Exchange Bank, Korea Exchange Bank, as well as Korea Exchange Bank, was in violation of Article 20 (a) (i) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits and Article 94 of the International Standard Bank Practice.

In full view of the above circumstances, even if Defendant Orion Shipping did not explicitly indicate that the Plaintiff or the negotiating bank, the beneficiary of the instant L/C, was in the capacity of the carrier when issuing the instant B/L as the agent of Orion Shipping, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for damages due to nonperformance of obligations under the transportation contract or the transportation brokerage contract, or liability for damages due to tort, unless the Plaintiff or the negotiating bank, as the beneficiary of the instant L/C, did not have any explicit indication on the part of the carrier, unless the holder of the instant B/L cannot be deemed to have any obstacle in exercising the right to claim delivery of the instant cargo against Orion Shipping. Furthermore, insofar as Defendant Orion Shipping cannot be deemed to have breached the duty of due care as above, it cannot be said that there was a mistake in failing to perform the duty of care in the transportation contract or the transportation brokerage contract.

D. Although the court below's explanation of its reasoning was somewhat insufficient, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defendants is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the strict principle of the terms of credit and the duty of care of the carrier or forwarding agent for the contents of the bill of lading, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the ground of appeal on the counterclaim

The plaintiff also stated the part concerning the counterclaim in the petition of appeal as the scope of dissatisfaction, but there is no legitimate ground of appeal as to the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party through the principal lawsuit and counterclaim. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)