2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is entitled to pay to the plaintiff 54,390,953 UN (hereinafter referred to as "Japan") with 6% per annum from February 8, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. Trading method of the instant scrap metal and the issuance of a letter of credit by the Defendants

1) The Republic of Korea’s StelM Co. Ltd. Ltd. (hereinafter “SethylM”) imported the class 1,820 MT (Meet metric tons) and the class 2,180 MT (hereinafter “the instant scrap metal”) from the Japanese JFE Shoji Tpo Corporation (hereinafter “Japan”), and decided to engage in a trade transaction of re-saleing the instant scrap metal after purchasing it from the Japanese scrap metal, and selling it to ethylM.

2) On November 18, 2011, Defendant Woori Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) issued an irrevocable letter of credit (hereinafter “instant first letter of credit”) on November 24, 201, on which Defendant Gwangju Bank established an irrevocable letter of credit (hereinafter “instant letter of credit”) and Defendant Gwangju Bank established the letter of credit (hereinafter “instant second letter of credit”) with the following contents as its beneficiary.

3) Main contents of the First Credit of this case

(1) Credit number: (Credit Number 1 omitted)

(2) Applicable Provisions: The latest revised UCPR

(3) Effective date: February 15, 2012

(4) Applicant: ethylM

(5) Beneficiaries: Bitd Methaloids

(6) Amount: 54,099,500 United Nations

(7) Free purchase potential

(8) Cargo port: Japanese ports and port of arrival: Korean ports.

(9) A product description: class 1,820MT of Japanese class H2

(10) Required documents: A signed commercial invoice, three copies of the bill of lading on board, three copies of the bill of lading issued in the instruction of the Defendant us bank, three copies of the bill of lading on board, three copies of the package, three copies of the bill of lading prepared by the inspector, and non-radioactive certificates prepared by the third inspector.

(11) Additional Conditions: Permitting 10% error of the amount and quantity of shipment, allowing presentation of documents 21 days after the date of the bill of lading, and presentation of all the documents before the expiration date of the letter of credit.

(12) Exchange Bank: FIBIC

(13) Notice Bank: the plaintiff

4) Main contents of the second letter of credit of this case

(1) Credit number: (Credit Number 2 omitted)

(2) Applicable Provisions: The latest revised UCPR

(3) Effective date: February 20, 2012

(4) Applicant: ethylM

(5) Beneficiaries: Bitd Methaloids

(6) Amount: 76,643,350 United Nations

(7) Free purchase potential

(8) Cargo port: Japanese ports and port of arrival: Korean ports.

(9) Product description: Japanese class 2,180MT

(10) Required documents: the package of the bill of lading loaded on board without an accident, signed commercial invoice, three copies of the package invoice, three copies of the package sheet, three copies of the package sheet prepared by the inspector of the third party, and non-radioactive certificates prepared by the inspector of the third party, which are marked as the date of receiving the freight and notified to Switzerland.

(11) Additional Conditions: Permitting 10% error of the amount and quantity of shipment, allowing presentation of documents 21 days after the date of the bill of lading, and presentation of all the documents before the expiration date of the letter of credit.

(12) A redemption bank: Switzerland Bank east Branch

(13) Notice Bank: the plaintiff

(b) A white documentary credit transaction;

1) On the basis of each of the instant L/C, the U.S. L/C requested the Plaintiff to open the so-called P/C (Bk-to-Back L/C) with Japan’s scrap metal as the beneficiary and its amount as 52,780,00 United Nations, 74,774,000 United Nations. Accordingly, on November 18, 201, the Plaintiff issued each of the white L/C corresponding to the first L/C of this case, and on November 29, 2011, each of the white L/C of this case corresponding to the second L/C of this case (hereinafter referred to as “each of the white L/C of this case”).

2) Miman’s Cord Ltd. (hereinafter “St Bank”) purchased each of the instant white L/C from Japanese scrap metal, the beneficiary, and requested the Plaintiff to pay the amount to the Plaintiff, who is the opening bank. On December 9, 2011 and December 14, 2011, the Plaintiff received the required documents and draft of exchange from the U.S. Bank from the U.S. Bank on December 15, 2011, and received the required documents and draft of exchange from the U.S. Bank on December 7, 2017, 963,90 UN on December 28, 2011 (the actual process was treated as loans from U.S. Bank on U.S. scrap), and paid them to the U.S. Bank on December 9, 2011, 203, 3064, 345, 2081, 206, 374, 2018.

3) Meanwhile, at the time of the issuance of each of the instant L/C, the Plaintiff agreed on the negotiation of each of the instant L/C, stating that “if the Plaintiff considers that the required documents of each of the instant L/C were presented in compliance with the law, the Plaintiff shall negotiate the documents and promise to pay the beneficiary in the event of non-performance of obligations by the issuing/verification bank, after exempting the beneficiary from the risk of non-performance of obligations on the ground that the documents were refused to comply with the law.”

C. Requests for redemption of each letter of credit of this case and refusal of payment

1) As above, while the Plaintiff repaid the White Credit Amount to the U.S. Bank and received two bills of exchange of each of the instant letters of credit and the amount of each of the two bills of exchange of 54,390,953 and 79,912,97 United Nations, on January 24, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant us Bank to refund the first letter of credit of this case while sending the required documents of the first letter of credit of this case and the bills of exchange of 54,390,953 United Nations. On the same day, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant Gwangju Bank to refund the second letter of credit of this case at the Switzerland branch of the 2nd letter of credit of this case (each of the required documents and bills of exchange).

2) On February 7, 2012, Defendant Woori Bank notified the Plaintiff’s request for the reimbursement of the amount of the First Credit of this case to the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of payment on the grounds that there is any disagreement as follows in the required documents of the said Credit.

(1) The difference between the weight and quantity in a report on examination of draft water;

(2) The difference between the total weight (or weight) between a bill of lading and a report on examination of draft.

(3) Difference between reports on examination of draft water and non-radioactive confirmations.

(4) The difference between the quantity in the commercial invoice and the numerical value in other documents.

(5) The difference between the ports of loading and unloading stated in the commercial invoice, packing statement, bill of lading, and report on examination of draft.

(6) Difference between a bill of lading and a credit.

3) On January 25, 2012, upon the Plaintiff’s request for the reimbursement of the second L/C amount, the reimbursement bank refused payment by the Defendant Gwangju Bank’s revocation of the request for reimbursement (the Defendant Gwangju Bank withdrawn its request on January 10, 2012 at the Switzerland east Branch), and on February 7, 2012, the Defendant Gwangju Bank notified the Defendant Gwangju Bank of the refusal of payment on the ground that there is any inconsistency as follows in the documents of the said L/C request:

(1) The difference between the port of loading and unloading stated in the commercial invoice, bill of lading, packing statement, draft approval report and the items stated in the credit.

(2) Difference between the description of goods stated in the commercial invoice and packing invoice and those stated in the bill of lading.

(3) Difference between the packing conditions stated in a bill of lading and the credit conditions.

(4) The difference between the buyer mentioned in a non-radioactive certificate and those listed in other documents.

(5) The difference between the cargo claims stated in a report on examination of draft and those stated in the credit.

(6) A difference between the total amount entered in a commercial invoice and the value calculated by multiplying the unit price.

(7) The difference between the owner stated in a report on examination of draft and the transportation company stated in the bill of lading.

(8) Requirements for a charter party bill of lading shall be satisfied.

(9) The difference between the total weight on a report on examination of draft and the total weight on a bill of lading and the quantities and items of other documents.

D. Payment on each letter of credit of the Plaintiff

On February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the first L/C amount of 54,390,953 UN, and 79,912,97 UN 1) with the second L/C amount of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap-1-4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16-20, 25, 26, Eul-1, 4, 5, 10-13 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

1) The Plaintiff is a bank that lawfully purchased each of the instant letters of credit as follows. The Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of the defects not later than five banking business days from the following day despite having been presented the requirements consistent with each of the instant letters of credit and the terms and conditions of the issuance, and thereafter, the Defendants, the issuing bank, are obligated to pay the Plaintiff each of the instant letters of credit.

A) Since the Plaintiff agreed to negotiate each of the instant L/C with the U.S. M. M. M. M. M. on November 18, 2011 and November 28, 2011, the Plaintiff constitutes a negotiating bank from that point of time.

B) On December 16, 2011 and December 27, 2011, the Plaintiff paid the amount of each of the instant L/C to the U.S. Bank for the purchase of each of the instant L/C documents. However, the Plaintiff is liable for reimbursement of the L/C amount on the basis of each of the instant L/C while the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the L/C amount to the U.S. bank, on the other hand, by bearing the obligation to pay the price of each of the instant L/C on the basis of each of the instant L/C, and thus, the Plaintiff is deemed to have paid the purchase price of each of the instant L/C amount to the U.S. bank.

C) On February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff also paid the amount equivalent to the purchase price to Na Med-Ba, the beneficiary of each of the instant credit.

2) Even if the Plaintiff does not constitute a legitimate negotiating bank of each of the instant letters of credit, the Plaintiff is a collecting bank that received a request for collection from the relevant documents presentation bank or beneficiary of each of the instant letters of credit, and the Defendants presented the documents consistent with the terms and conditions of each of the instant letters of credit to the Defendants, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff for the letter of credit.

B. The Defendants

1) The Plaintiff merely paid the amount of each of the instant L/C to the U.S. Bank, and presented each of the instant L/C documents to the U.S. Bank without paying the purchase price for each of the instant L/C to the U.S. beneficiary. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the negotiating bank for each of the instant L/C.

2) The amount that the Plaintiff paid to Na Ba Ba Ba on February 19, 2013 cannot be deemed as the amount that was paid as the purchase price of each of the instant L/C. Even if the amount was paid as the purchase price of each of the instant L/C, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate payment for the purchase price under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits since the Defendants paid after the lapse of the banking business day that was due to the Plaintiff’s presentation of payment.

3) The Plaintiff is not a negotiating bank of each of the instant L/C, but a beneficiary of the instant L/C in order to claim the payment of the L/C amount from the transferee of the L/C. However, the Plaintiff cannot be protected as the transferee of the L/C. Even if the Plaintiff acquired the status of the beneficiary of the L/C of each of the instant L/C and met the requisite for setting up against the Plaintiff, the relevant bill of lading presented to the Defendants for the repayment of the amount of each of the instant L/C was forged or falsely prepared, and the Defendants did not have any obligation to reimburse the amount of each of the instant L/C, even though he/she was aware that the instant scrap metal import transaction was an unfair fraudulent transaction that abused the L/C transaction.

4) Even if the Plaintiff constitutes a negotiating bank, the instant bill of lading is a false bill of lading, and the Plaintiff knew or had sufficient grounds to suspect that the instant bill of lading was forged or falsified prior to the negotiation of each of the instant letters of credit, and thus, the Defendants did not have the duty to pay the amount of each of the instant letters of credit to the Plaintiff.

5) As the Defendants asserted to the Plaintiff, there is a disagreement between the conditions of each of the instant L/C and the documents sent by the Plaintiff, so the Defendants did not have the obligation to pay each of the instant L/C to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

The Plaintiff claims reimbursement of the purchase price for each of the instant L/C as the issuing bank in the position of the negotiating bank or document presentation bank under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, and the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff constitutes either a negotiating bank or a document presentation bank, and thus, the Plaintiff can be protected as a document presentation institution if the Plaintiff is not a negotiating bank under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits.

A. Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits applicable to each of the instant letters of credit

The facts that the applicable provisions are stated in each of the instant letters of credit are as seen earlier, so the legal relationship with each of the instant letters of credit is governed by the 6th Amendment of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 2007 Revision, ICC No. 600, hereinafter “Rules for Documentary Credits”) which came into force at the time of the issuance of each of the instant letters of credit.

B. Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a purchasing bank

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that "purchase means the purchase of bills of exchange (and/or documents issued in the future of a bank that is not a designated bank) and/or documents by a nominated bank with or with the consent to the payment of the price by the nominated bank on or before the banking day on which the reimbursement is due to the nominated bank." Article 14 (b) of the same Rule provides that "any nominated bank, confirming bank, and issuing bank shall have a maximum of five banking business days from the day following the respective date of presentation in order to determine whether the presentation is consistent." In light of the provisions of Article 2 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, the purchase of documents under the above provision can be made by the nominated bank authorized to negotiate by means of cash, old deposit, etc., in which the nominated bank immediately pays the actual price to the beneficiary or bears the obligation to pay the price to the beneficiary on a specific date. The subsequent purchase by the nominated bank refers to a case where the purchase bank can immediately pay the real price by bearing an unlimited and absolute obligation to the beneficiary on a specific date (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da979Da.

Meanwhile, in a case where the negotiating bank of the master letter of credit, which is the purchase bank of the master letter of credit, opened and extended a white documentary credit to the beneficiary at the request of the beneficiary who is the intermediate trader, and then borrowed the funds for the settlement of the price of the white documentary credit to the beneficiary, and received the documents of the master letter of credit for the security of the loan from the beneficiary, if the negotiating bank received the documents of the master letter of credit for the guarantee of the loan, the issuing bank's opening of the white documentary credit or lending for the settlement of the price was conducted under its responsibility and risk in order to obtain profits such as interest on the loan, and the legal relationship of the master letter of credit is not any relation with it, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the negotiating bank received the documents by means of the first letter of credit and the purchase of the documents cannot be deemed to have been made at the time of the purchase of the master letter of credit at the request of the beneficiary, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the purchasing bank immediately paid the funds to the beneficiary by means of the purchase bank's 97 p.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a purchasing bank

Examining the facts as acknowledged earlier in light of the aforementioned legal principles as to the negotiation of the letter of credit, including the Plaintiff’s receipt process of documents on each of the instant letters of credit and the fact that the Plaintiff, the beneficiary of each of the instant letters of credit on February 19, 2013, paid the amount equivalent to the purchase price to Na Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have promised to negotiate each of the instant letters of credit before February 19, 2013, or the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to Ba Ba Ba Ba, the negotiating bank, the negotiating bank, as the issuing bank of each of the instant letters of credit. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have assumed an unconditional and absolute obligation to pay the purchase price on each of the instant letters of credit on December 18, 201 and November 18, 2011 (the letter of credit of this case).

In addition, according to the above legal principles and the contents and purport of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, for the lawful and effective negotiation of the credit, the actual payment of the purchase price or the burden of an unconditional and absolute obligation to pay the purchase price must be done on or before the banking day on which the designated bank can repay the letter of credit amount. The plaintiff obtained the status of the negotiating bank of each of the credit of this case since February 19, 2013 where the five banking business day from February 19, 2012, after each of the credit of this case and relevant documents reached and presented to the defendants, was considerably more than the five banking business day from February 19, 2013, since each of the credit of this case and relevant documents reached and presented to the defendants, it cannot be deemed that the purchase price of each of the credit of this case was lawfully paid. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained the status of the negotiating bank of

C. Whether the plaintiff can claim for the letter of credit in the case of a purchasing bank

As examined earlier, there is no room to deem that the Plaintiff legally purchased the status of the negotiating bank prior to February 19, 2013 of the documents of each of the instant L/C. However, in view of the progress of pleadings, the issue of whether the Plaintiff may claim reimbursement of the purchase price of each of the instant L/C in the position of the negotiating bank as alleged by the Plaintiff on February 19, 2013, assuming that the Plaintiff could have acquired the status of the negotiating bank by paying the amount equivalent to the purchase price on February 19, 2013

If the negotiating bank claims reimbursement of the L/C amount to the L/C issuing bank in a transaction by means of a documentary L/C, the issuing bank is exempted from its duty of reimbursement unless the negotiating bank has sufficient reasons to suspect that the document was forged or forged at the time of the negotiation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da88337, Jan. 13, 201; 2009Da93817, Jan. 27, 2012). Although the shipping documents required by the L/C are not forged, it is reasonable to view that the negotiating bank's claim against the issuing bank for reimbursement of the L/C amount was merely a fraudulent transaction which was discovered by the documentary credit transaction in light of the structure and characteristics of the L/C transaction, and thus, the negotiating bank cannot be protected by the independence and abstractness principle of the L/C's L/C's independence.

In light of such legal principles, even if the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, could be deemed to have acquired the status of the negotiating bank on February 19, 2013, which paid the amount corresponding to the purchase price of each of the instant L/C, as indicated by the Plaintiff, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleadings by the Plaintiff, around February 17, 2012, the aforementioned payment transfer date, the Plaintiff had already been made by paying the purchase price of each of the instant L/C documents, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff could not claim the purchase price of the letter of credit of this case against the Defendants, which is the issuing bank, because it had already been acquired by paying the purchase price of the instant L/C documents, even though it was aware of the fact that the instant scrap metals had already been already taken out of Korea.

D. Whether the plaintiff can claim for the letter of credit against a non-purchaseing bank

1) According to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, even if a nominated bank becomes a nominated bank that can receive documents in the case of a freely purchased credit, and unless the nominated bank explicitly agrees and notifies the beneficiary to the beneficiary, the bank is not obligated to pay, pay, pay, accept bills of exchange, or negotiate documents. In light of such provisions, the bank that received documents related to the credit from the beneficiary can directly purchase them and seek reimbursement from the issuing bank as the negotiating bank, and may directly forward the documents to the issuing bank without negotiating them, and seek reimbursement of the amount of the credit for the beneficiary as the document presentation bank. In the latter case, the issuing bank may set up against the beneficiary any defense against the above bank that presented the documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da68266, Jan. 24, 2003; 2002Da3754, May 27, 2005).

2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged as to the import transaction, etc. of the instant scrap metal by ethylM, etc., in light of the statements in Gap-4, 6, 15, 27, 28, Eul-3, 4, 6-8, and 18-24.

① The ethylM has been engaged in scrap metal import transactions using another person’s funds by separating the transaction of credit based on the actual relationship between the transport of goods and the transaction of credit conducted by presentation of documents, rather than the transaction of goods directly. The import of the instant scrap metal also does not follow the structure of the general credit transaction in which the importer and the applicant of the instant L/C pays the L/C amount corresponding to the import price to the issuing bank, and instead, instead of accepting the required documents and exchanging them, tried to pay ex post facto the price of each of the instant L/C by taking out and disposing of the instant scrap metal using a separate customs bill of lading.

② Although SNM directly designated Japan’s scrap metal as its customer and agreed to purchase the instant scrap metal upon consultation with its trading volume and price, it requested MNM to serve as a party to the instant scrap metal import transaction in the form of purchasing the instant scrap metal from Japanese scrap metal and supplying it to SM. As such, SNM agreed to pay a fee equivalent to 2.5% of the L/C amount in return for performing the above role in the instant scrap metal import transaction. Accordingly, the L/C issuing bank established the instant L/C to receive 2.5% amount of the L/C amount for the import of the instant scrap metal as its fee, and the L/C issuing bank established the instant scrap metal to be 54,90,509, 700, 700, 700, 700, 3700, 707, 700, 707, 700, 700, 707, and 707, 700, 700, 7000.

③ The main agent of the instant scrap metal import process was ethylM, which led to the transportation and customs process, and neither the oil of the instant scrap metal was actually involved in the purchase, shipment, removal, etc. of the instant scrap metal.

④ On December 201, 201, upon arrival of the instant scrap metal imported by ethylM in the Republic of Korea, Switzerland removed the instant scrap metal in advance before the Plaintiff presented the documents of each of the instant L/C to the Defendant Bank and the Defendant Gwangju Bank (a bill of lading presented to the Defendant Bank, QL-1, a bill of lading presented to the Defendant Bank, and HYK-2), not a bill of lading (a bill of lading presented to the Defendant Bank) but a notice place is called “DAEHE SET COMTR LTR” and “DONGK MOL MOL MOL COD” (the foregoing companies are the business partners that removed and sold the instant scrap metal transported to the Republic of Korea).

⑤ On December 15, 201, and December 28, 2011, U.S. A., the issuing bank of each of the instant L/C, paid the price to the Plaintiff, who was the issuing bank of each of the instant L/C. At that time, the Plaintiff also requested the Defendants to repay the price for each of the instant L/C to the U.S. bank, which is the negotiating bank of each of the instant L/C, even though the Plaintiff had received and possessed the required documents of each of the instant L/C, but only at the end of January, 2012, the Plaintiff had to demand the Defendants to repay the price for each of the instant L/C.

6) Before the import transaction of the instant scrap metal, the ethylM and the Nabrid was also issued several copies of the L/C based on the L/C on which the applicant, the beneficiary, the L/C applicant, and the L/C based on the said L/C (the issuing bank is diverse from Defendant us Bank, the Nonghyup Bank, the Industrial Bank of Korea, etc.) and the L/C was issued several times. The Nabrid was made to demand reimbursement of the L/C amount to the banks that opened the L/C as stated in each of the instant L/C after the lapse of about 50 days from the date on which the L/C was loaded and the bill of lading was issued, and it was paid the amount equivalent to 2.5% of the L/C amount in return for the issuance of the lub L/C for luM.

⑦ 한편 스틸엠은 주식회사 화승네트웍스(이하 ‘화승네트웍스’라고 한다)와 사이에서도 스틸엠을 수입상, 화승네트웍스의 베트남 현지법인을 수출상으로 하는 제1 신용장을 개설한 뒤 그 신용장을 화승네트웍스가 양도받고, 위 신용장을 담보로 화승네트웍스를 수입상, 일본 고철상을 수출상으로 하는 제2 신용장을 개설하게 하여 고철을 수입하여 불법 반출하는 한편 제1 신용장의 양수인인 화승네트웍스로 하여금 제1 신용장의 개설은행에 허위로 작성한 스위치 선하증권을 제시하여 신용장대금을 결제받도록 하는 이 사건 고철 수입거래와 유사한 방식의 신용장거래를 하였다. 이에 관한 위 제1 신용장 개설은행들과 화승네트웍스 사이의 손해배상청구 및 신용장대금 청구소송에서 화승네트웍스의 패소판결이 선고되어 일부는 그대로 확정되고( 서울고등법원 2013나2020753 , 2013나2020760 판결 ), 나머지는 현재 상고심( 대법원 2015다237830 )에 계속 중이다. 또한 스틸엠의 대표이사 소외 1은 제1 신용장과 부합하게 허위로 작성받은 스위치 선하증권을 매입은행에 제출하여 결제받았다는 등의 범죄사실로 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기), 사기, 허위유가증권작성 및 동행사 등 죄로 기소되어 징역 3년 및 집행유예 5년의 형을, 화승네트웍스의 대표인 소외 2는 위와 같은 소외 1의 범죄에 공모, 가담하였다는 범죄사실로 징역 2년 6월 및 집행유예 3년의 형을 각 선고받았고[ 광주지방법원 2013고합453, 2013고합600(병합) ], 위 판결은 모두 확정되었다.

3) Comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendants, as the issuing bank of each of the instant L/C, did not bear the obligation to repay the L/C price for the L/C publication for the following reasons. Accordingly, the Defendants, as the presenter of each of the instant L/C documents or as the beneficiary, can oppose the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of each of the instant L/C price as the transferee of the right to receive the L/C publication.

In accordance with the ordinary L/C transaction method, SM opened the L/C and received shipping documents for the instant scrap metal from the bank, and did not sell them normally to arrive at the Republic of Korea through which it had been used. Although L/C was directly negotiated with the Japanese scrap metal and decided on matters concerning the import transaction of the instant scrap metal, L/C purchased the instant scrap metal from the Japanese scrap metal, and again imported ethylM again from the celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal cele celebal celebal ce.

E. Sub-decision

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is not a negotiating bank of each of the instant L/C, and thus cannot exercise its right to recourse against the Defendants as the negotiating bank. Even if the Plaintiff acquired the status of the negotiating bank on February 19, 2013, each of the instant L/C was purchased with the knowledge of the fact that the instant scrap metal was already taken out, and thus, cannot be protected as a legitimate negotiating bank. Moreover, the Plaintiff cannot seek payment against the Defendants, the issuing bank, as well as the transferee of the right of Na Ba Ba Ba Ba mer, because the Plaintiff cannot be protected as a legitimate beneficiary. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit, without examining whether there was any error in the documents presented by the Defendants or whether there was any inconsistency with the terms and conditions of the L/C by the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)

1) The Defendants asserted that: (a) during the pleadings of the instant case, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that “the Plaintiff paid each of the instant L/C to the U.S. Bank, which is the purchasing bank of each of the instant white L/C, in addition to the payment of each of the instant white L/C price,” and that “the Plaintiff paid each of the instant L/C to the U.S. P/C to the U.S. P. P. P.S. P. P. P., at the sixth date for pleading of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that “the Plaintiff paid each of the instant L/C to the U.S. P. P. P. P.P. P.S. P., at the first instance trial,” this constitutes revocation of confession; (b) according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments, the Plaintiff paid each of the instant L/C on February 19, 2013. As such, the Plaintiff’s existing statement goes against the truth; and (c) insofar as the aforementioned existing statement is inconsistent with the purport of the entire pleadings (see, 2013014.