[2] Whether the issuing bank may refuse to pay the L/C negotiation on the ground that the presentation of shipping documents was delayed for a considerable period from the issue date of the L/C until the expiration date (negative)

[2] The L/C issuing bank shall, in principle, accept the shipping documents presented by the L/C negotiating bank in compliance with the terms and conditions of the L/C and assume the obligation to redeem the negotiation of the L/C to the negotiating bank. Even if shipping documents coincide with the terms and conditions of the L/C and were presented within the validity period of the L/C, the negotiating bank may not refuse to pay the L/C negotiation on the ground that the negotiating bank did not present the shipping documents to the issuing bank within two to three days of ordinary practices after purchasing shipping documents, or that the shipping documents were presented for the extended period

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of each of the statements as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 10-1 through 7, 1 through 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 5-1, 6-1, 5, 7 through 10, 12 through 28, and 1 through 4 of the evidence as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 7, and the testimony as set forth in the witness words as set forth in the witness words as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 7, and there is no counter-proof.

(a) Credit transactions;

(1) Nonparty 1, Inc., KL. (KL.) Unemployment located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as 'K.L. Unemployment') shall request Chungcheong Bank to open a letter of credit from Nonparty 1 (M) SDR (M) SDN. BHD. hereinafter referred to as 'gel company') located in Malaysia, and shall request Chungcheong Bank to open a letter of credit from Nonparty 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 3, 1, 3, 9, 3, 3, 9, 3, 9, 3, 3, 9, 3, 9, 3, 9, 1, 3, 9, 1, 3, 9, 1, 3, 9, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 3, 4, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 3, 4, 1, 3, 3, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, .

(2) On February 28, 1996, the Chungcheong Bank changed the respective effective period of the first L/C from February 28, 1996 at the request of the applicant with the consent of the beneficiary to (e) (f) of the attached list, and each final shipment period from (g) to (h) of the attached list respectively.

(3) The Plaintiff’s head office located in Kui-ro LUPR (KUALA LUPR) purchased the bill of exchange issued by Hegian as the payer from Hegian as the beneficiary on the date stated in the attached list (j) from Hegian as stated in the attached list, with the shipping documents stated as the shipment of the goods on the date stated in the attached list as the amount of the letter of credit stated in paragraph (c) of the attached Table, and purchased the bill of exchange issued by Hegian as the beneficiary on the same date as the amount of the letter of credit stated in the attached list. At the request of Hegian, he did not present the shipping documents to Hai-bank as the issuing bank during the period stated in the attached Form (l). The Plaintiff’s head office, without presenting the shipping documents to the issuing bank, sent the purchase price to Hegian account at the point where the issuing bank must decing the remaining purchase price after deducting the interest and other fees corresponding to each of the above periods.

(4) However, on April 18, 1996, the Chungcheong Bank notified that the acceptance of the shipping documents of the first letter of credit was "a disagreement between late presentation and documents." On April 26, 1996, as to the shipping documents of the second letter of credit, it notified that the reason for refusal was "a disagreement between documents." On May 21, 1996, the Chungcheong Bank notified the Plaintiff of the reason for refusal as to the shipping documents of the second letter of credit. On May 21, 1996, the documents were submitted to the Plaintiff after the lapse of an excessively long period after the shipment of the goods. The documents were omitted in the commercial invoice and packing specifications, and the beneficiary's address was not inconsistent with the documents, and notified the Plaintiff by specifically stating the reason for refusal of the acceptance of the documents.

(5) Meanwhile, on April 15, 1996, KEL Unemployment was defaulted on April 15, 1996, and the old type of the main office, which is the representative director of KEL Unemployment, escaped abroad on April 10, 1996.

(b) Declaration of bankruptcy of the loyalty bank;

(1) On October 27, 1998, the Chungcheong Bank was declared bankrupt by the Daejeon District Court 98Ha14, and the Defendants were appointed as bankruptcy trustee in that decision. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the entire amount of the claims reported by the Plaintiff on the date of bankruptcy claim investigation. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the total amount of claims reported by the Plaintiff on the date of bankruptcy investigation, which is the sum of US$ 1,483,220 and US$ 646,071.06, which is the sum of US$ 2,129,29,291.06, which is the sum of US$ 1,312 and US$ 1,312.0.

2. The plaintiff's right to demand reimbursement

A. The plaintiff and the defendants' assertion

With respect to the plaintiff's bankruptcy claim against Chungcheong Bank against the defendant, who is the trustee in bankruptcy, claiming that the plaintiff has the right to demand reimbursement of the purchase price of this case, the defendants asserted that ① shipping documents were delayed, ② shipping documents were inconsistent with each other, ③ there are no originals such as commercial invoice, packing note, etc., ④ The letter of credit of this case is a limited letter of credit that can be purchased only at the point of origin, ④ the plaintiff's head office in Kuu-ri was purchased and violated the conditions of restriction on purchase. ⑤ The bill of lading does not confirm the carrier, the captain, or his agent, and there is any defect that does not indicate the carrier's address or contact address, and thus, the Chungcheong Bank can refuse the payment of the purchase price of this case.

B. The scope of the grounds for refusal of payment asserted by the defendant

(1) According to Article 14(d) of the Uniform Regulations, when an issuing bank has decided to refuse to accept a document, it shall notify the bank that sent the document by means of telegraph or other rapid means, if it is unable to use the document without delay to the extent that it does not exceed the closing time of the 7 banking business day counting from the day following the receipt of the document. The notice shall specify all defective matters for which the bank refused to accept the document. At the same time, the bank shall inform the presenter of whether the document is in custody or not it is in return.

(2) In light of the fact that the issuing bank of the letter of credit notifies that it refuses the documents as above, it is required to specify all defects and to specify whether the documents are in possession of them, the notification of defective matters shall specify all defects only once within the 7 bank business day counting from the day following the receipt of the documents, and shall not thereafter make a new notification of rejection on the grounds of additional defects, and shall not refuse the acceptance of the documents on the grounds of additional defects.

(3) According to the facts acknowledged above, the Chungcheong Bank only notified the Plaintiff within the 7th business day following the date of each receipt of the letter of credit of this case that it refused to accept the shipping documents of the first letter of credit of this case on the ground of the lack of presentation of delay and documents, and the second letter of credit of this case's refusal to accept the shipping documents of the second letter of credit of this case on the ground of the inconsistency between documents. Thus, the grounds for refusal to accept the documents asserted by the Defendant are limited to the grounds specified in the above notice of each of the above. Therefore, the remaining grounds for refusal of payment, excluding the reasons specified in the above notice of each of the reasons for refusal of payment alleged by the Defendants, are without merit without any need to decide on the legitimacy of the above notice of this case.

C. As to whether payment can be refused on the ground of the delay presentation of shipping documents

(1) The Defendants asserted that, in the L/C transaction, the negotiating bank of shipping documents is a bank acting on behalf of the issuing bank and must purchase documents in compliance with the terms and conditions of the L/C and then send documents to the issuing bank within a grace period of two to three days, which is normally accepted at the time when the shipping documents were presented by its beneficiary. If the presentation of shipping documents is delayed to the extent that it goes beyond normal commercial practices from the time of their issuance, the negotiating bank cannot be protected under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits. Since the Plaintiff purchased shipping documents related to the first L/C and sent them to the Chungcheong bank after several months, it can refuse to pay the purchase price of the

(2) ① The issuing bank shall, in principle, accept the shipping documents presented by the negotiating bank in compliance with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit and assume the obligation to reimburse the negotiating bank for the negotiation of the letter of credit (see Article 14 of the Uniform Regulations), and even though the shipping documents comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, the negotiating bank may not refuse to pay the purchase price of the letter of credit on the ground that the negotiating bank did not present the shipping documents to the issuing bank within two to three days after the purchase of the shipping documents, or that the shipping documents were presented for the extended period from the date of issuance due to the delayed delay

(2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the first L/C does not impose any restrictions on the period during which the negotiating bank purchased shipping documents and sent documents to the issuing bank (this case’s L/C states that the delay in shipping documents is unnecessary, but this is an instruction to the beneficiary who is not the negotiating bank). Meanwhile, the negotiating bank, presented shipping documents to the Chungcheong bank within each effective period of the first L/C, and the Plaintiff, the negotiating bank, is not contrary to the terms and conditions of the L/C, and thus, the time for presentation of the documents by the Plaintiff is not contrary to the terms and conditions of the L/C, and thus, the Chungcheong bank is obligated to reimburse the Plaintiff for the purchase price of the first L/C

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

D. As to whether payment can be refused on the ground of a disagreement between documents

(1) According to Article 13(a) of the Uniform Rule, the Defendants asserted that the documents inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Credit may be deemed to be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Credit, and that the shipping documents sent by the Plaintiff to the Chungcheong Bank may refuse to pay the purchase price of the Credit, asserting that there is any inconsistency as follows:

① From among the relevant documents of the instant L/C, the beneficiary’s name and address are indicated as “GEEE (M) SDN. BHD. 74 HD. 41/37620 JGJ 11/371 47620 SUBG JYG JYG JYG JYA MAYAYAYAYAYASI”; however, in the commercial invoice and packing specifications, the beneficiary’s name and address are described as “GEEN (M) SDDD. BHD. BHD. 32; JALN USJ 4/6G, 4700 U.EPPBBG JYG YGYYY 60352536-2536365375-63753637.

(2) The name and address of the consignor in the bill of lading among shipping documents of the second letter of credit.

- In the case of each bill of lading concerning the credit stated in [Attachment 5 and 6]

FIDLITY MERE CO. LTD.

65 WONG CHUK HaNG RODD

GECHG HONG CENRE, 19TH FL

WONG CHUG, HONG, HONG KONG

TEL: 852-28730888

- In the case of a bill of lading concerning the credit stated in paragraph 7 of the Schedule

ELKI MERCHND CORP.

3200 WISHIREBLD SUITE 905

LOSNGESS, CA90010, USA

TEL: 213-386-0201

Each entry is written as follows: the name and address of the consignor in the commercial invoice and package description;

- In the case of each commercial invoice and package description concerning the Credit stated in Schedule 5 and 6

FIDLITY MERE CO. LTD.

GECHG HONG CENRE, 19/F;

65, WONG CHUK HaNAD,

G.P. BOX 890, HONG KONG

- In the case of the commercial invoice and package description of the Credit stated in paragraph 7 of the Schedule

ELKI MERCHND CORP.

3200, WISIRE BLD., SUITE 905

LOSNGES, CA 90010, U.S.A.

TEL: (213) 386-0201, 0403

Each entry is written.

(2) On the other hand, Article 14(d) of the Uniform Rule provides that the issuing bank shall promptly notify the bank that sent the documents of all defects, where it has decided to refuse to accept the documents, by specifying the reasons for refusal, that the negotiating bank, beneficiary, etc. may rectify the defects in the documents within the term of validity of the letter of credit and make it possible for the negotiating bank, beneficiary, etc. to present them again within the term of validity of the letter of credit, and make it impossible for the negotiating bank or beneficiary to refuse to accept the documents again for any other defects. Therefore, when notifying the rejection of the letter of credit, the issuing bank shall clearly indicate that the negotiating bank or beneficiary can clearly recognize the defects, specify them to the extent that it is possible to distinguish them from other defects, and supplement the contents

However, according to the above facts, the reasons for refusing to accept the documents related to the letter of credit of this case notified to the plaintiff are merely "a disagreement between the documents" and thus, it cannot be deemed legitimate notification of refusal because there is no disagreement between the documents, and even if the loyalty bank notified the plaintiff in detail after the fact, the defect cannot be cured.

(3) Even if the above rejection notice is lawful, it is nothing more than a presentation of shipping documents under the convenience of the bank in sending the shipping documents to inform the issuing bank of the fact that the negotiating bank purchased the shipping documents, and it is not a document necessary to present the shipping documents for payment, acceptance, or negotiation of the letter of credit. Thus, the beneficiary’s name and address stated in the CUME NTS is different from the beneficiary’s name and address stated in the commercial invoice and packing note, and thus, it cannot be a reason for refusing to accept the shipping documents.

In addition, the phrase that each document should be consistent with the language and text does not mean that the wording should not be completely identical, but even if there is a little difference in the wording, if the bank pays considerable attention to it, and if it can be seen on the face that the difference does not cause any difference in the meaning of the text and text, it does not impair the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. However, the difference in the name and address of the consignor stated in the bill of lading concerning the second letter of credit between the consignor's name and address stated in the bill of lading and the consignor's name and address stated in the commercial invoice, or between the consignor's name and address stated in the bill of lading and the address stated in the bill of lading, is merely a difference in the manner of stating a marina ticket or shelter, the location in which the name and address of the building are stated, the letter number or telephone number stated in the bill of lading, and thus

(4) Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

D. Demanding reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s L/C negotiation

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff has the right to claim reimbursement of the L/C negotiation amount and damages for delay against the Chungcheong bank which promised to pay the negotiation amount through the issuance of the L/C of this case.

3. Defendants’ defenses

(a) Defenses against fraud or fraud;

(1) According to the shipping documents sent by the Plaintiff to Chungcheong Bank, the Defendants knew that Hegel company, which entered into a contract for purchase of the goods, did not directly provide the goods, but could have loaded the goods through the L/C's L/C located in Hong Kong, the E.S. L/C companies and the E.S. companies denied the shipment of the goods, and there was a close relationship between the old L/C company and Hegel company, the representative director of the KL unemployment, and the Deel E. L/C companies and Hegian company, etc. were to prepare a false contract in collusion with each other, and had it issue the L/C bank the instant L/C, and then, the Plaintiff did not actually purchase the goods in violation of the terms and conditions of the L/C to enable the Plaintiff to withdraw the shipment of the goods, but did not actually purchase the goods in violation of the terms and conditions of the L/C. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know that the sales of the goods in question had been made prior to the issuance of the bill of lading.

(2) According to the evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 3, and 9-1 to 9-5 of the evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 3, and 9-1 to 10-9 of the evidence No. 10 of the evidence No. 8, there is a strong doubt as to whether there was no actual transaction between the applicant of the letter of credit of this case and Hegians. However, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the former type of evidence alone conspired with Hegians, etc. to make a forged transaction of shipping documents without loading the goods, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, in the transaction under the L/C, even though the negotiating bank delivers the shipping documents to the issuing bank immediately and collects the purchase price of the L/C, the negotiating bank provides the effect of the credit to the importer or exporter, and from the standpoint of the negotiating bank, it does not go against the terms and conditions of the L/C, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff knew or could have known the forgery of the shipping documents merely because the Plaintiff delayed the shipping documents in return for interest acquisition. Meanwhile, since the L/C transaction is not a transaction of goods, it is not a transaction of the documents, the bank must check whether the shipping documents coincide with the terms and conditions of the L/C. Furthermore, the bank does not bear the substantial duty to examine the shipping documents, such as whether the shipping documents were forged or falsified, the description, quantity, and existence of the shipping documents, and if the Plaintiff, the negotiating bank, was the negotiating bank, whether the shipping documents were actually a transaction of goods stated in the shipping documents consistent with the terms and conditions of the L/C, and thus, it cannot be determined that the Plaintiff did not know the remaining shipping documents at the time of forgery or omission.

Therefore, the above defense is without merit.

(b) Set-off of negligence;

(1) The Defendants asserted that, due to delayed presentation of the shipping documents to the Plaintiff, they deprived of the opportunity to pay the L/C amount from the Chungcheong Bank prior to the increase in the exchange rate, and that the Chungcheong Bank deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right of reimbursement prior to the failure to pay the L/C applicant, and that such negligence should be considered in determining the amount of the L/C amount to be paid by the Chungcheong Bank to the Plaintiff.

(2) On the other hand, the plaintiff's claim of this case is an exercise of the right to demand reimbursement of the L/C negotiation amount, which is the original claim for payment under the L/C transaction, and the payment of the price is not covered by the provisions of comparative negligence. Thus, it is not necessary to further examine the remaining issues, and the defendants' defense is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff has 1,483,220 U.S. dollars 1,64,160 + 166,760 + 160 + 160,740 + 163,240 + 60 + 61,840 U.S. dollars (164,160 + 760 + 1664,60 + 760 + 760 + 760 + 7660 + 963.6.65% of the total amount of the purchase price of the letter of credit / 96.6% of the total amount of the 196 U.S. dollars / 96.6% of the total amount of the purchase price of the first letter of credit / 296.6% of the total amount of the 365 U.S. dollars / 196.6% of the total amount of the purchase price of the letter of credit / 196.6% of the total amount of the 297.4.6% of the letter of credit /194.6.6.7.

If the above amount of a claim is converted into Korean currency as requested by the Plaintiff, it shall be converted according to the sale-based rate at the time of the most close conclusion of fact-finding proceedings, so the amount of US$2,129,291.06 shall be converted into 2,512,989,309 won (=2,129,291.06 x 1,180.20 won) which is at the time of the conclusion of the argument at fact-finding proceedings, which is at the time of the conclusion of the argument at fact-finding proceedings in this case, converted the amount of 2,512,989,309 won (=2,129, 291.06 x

On the other hand, the plaintiff's credit payment claims are claims arising from the causes that occurred before the bankruptcy was declared against the bankrupt, and they constitute bankruptcy claims. However, as long as the defendants raised an objection against the plaintiff's bankruptcy claims in whole and taken over the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff's profits to seek confirmation for the confirmation of bankruptcy claims.

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (attached Form omitted).

Judges Kang Yong-sung (Presiding Judge)