[2] Where a foreign corporation, etc. has an office, place of business, or address of a person in charge of business within the Republic of Korea, whether the jurisdiction of the Korean court can be recognized for disputes not related to the business of a branch of a foreign corporation (affirmative with qualification)

[3] The court applying supplementaryly to a conflict of laws and regulations applicable to a conflict of interest case, or where it is impossible to confirm the content due to a lack of foreign laws or a lack of materials on its existence

[4] The case holding that it is reasonable to apply mutatis mutandis the Chinese bill of exchange law, which was enforced later, to the Chinese bill of exchange law, in case where the applicable law to the obligations of the underwriter of a bill of exchange, which was attached to the letter of credit transaction, is the Chinese law where the bill of exchange is payable, but there was no law regulating the relation of a bill of exchange at the time when it

[5] The case holding that, on the ground that a bill of exchange, which is in compliance with the conditions of the credit, is presented on the condition that it will accept it and pay it at maturity, it cannot be deemed that the issuing bank's refusal to accept the entire letter of credit documents with the same contents as the above special condition, on the ground that the special condition of the credit is valid only because it constitutes a non-documentary condition that cannot determine whether the conditions of the credit are fulfilled by the documents attached to the credit

[6] The purport of Article 16 (e) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits

[2] Under Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a foreign corporation has an office, a place of business, or a person in charge of affairs within the Republic of Korea, the general forum shall be recognized. Thus, it is reasonable to recognize the jurisdiction of our court, in principle, even if the dispute is not about the business of a branch of the Republic of Korea of a foreign corporation, unless there are special circumstances that lead to extremely unfair results in light of the ideology of civil procedure, considering the possibility of evidence collection and the degree of burden of litigation performance.

[3] The foreign law should be interpreted and applied in accordance with the meaning, contents, and interpretation of the foreign law to be applied to a conflict of case. If there is a defect in the foreign law to be applied in the course of the lawsuit or there is no data on its existence, so it is impossible for the court to confirm the contents of the foreign customary law, and if it is impossible to confirm the contents of the foreign customary law, it should be tried by the cooking. The contents of the cooking should be supplemented by the overall and systematic order of the foreign law to take the most close solution to the original applicable foreign law, and in this sense, it can be inferred that the law that is considered most similar to the foreign law is prepared.

[4] The case holding that it is reasonable to apply mutatis mutandis the Chinese bill of exchange law, which was enforced later, to the bill of exchange law, in case where the law applicable to the obligations of the underwriter of a bill of exchange, is the Chinese law at which the bill of exchange is to be paid, but there was no law governing the relation of the bill at the time when the bill of exchange is presented and accepted

[5] The case holding that, on the ground that a bill of exchange, which is in conformity with the conditions of the credit, is presented on the condition that it will accept it and pay it at maturity, it cannot be deemed that the issuing bank's refusal to accept the entire letter of credit documents with the same contents as the above special condition, on the ground that the special condition of the credit is valid only because it constitutes a non-documentary condition that cannot determine whether the conditions of the credit are fulfilled by the documents attached to the credit

[6] Article 16 (e) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 400) provides that where an issuing bank intends to refuse to accept a document on the ground of a disagreement in the document presented, the issuing bank shall lose its right to assert that the document does not comply with the conditions of the letter of credit if it did not notify the presenter of the disagreement without delay and return the document, etc.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The issue of whether domestic jurisdiction is recognized in relation to a conflict of international jurisdiction shall be determined by cooking in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring the fairness, propriety and promptness of trials between the parties, so long as the principles of international jurisdiction are not yet established in the treaty or generally accepted international law, and there are no written laws and regulations in our country. In this case, since the provisions concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea have been enacted in accordance with the above basic ideology, it is reasonable to determine whether the above provisions have jurisdiction over the conflict of international cases in our country (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da41897 delivered on July 28, 1992).

On the other hand, Article 4 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the general forum of a corporation, etc. shall be based on its main office or business office, and when there is no office or business office, it shall be based on the address of the main worker in charge, and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the general forum of a foreign corporation, etc. shall be applied to the office, business office, or the address of the worker in charge located in the Republic of Korea. In accordance with the above provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, where a foreign corporation, etc. has an office, business office, or business office in the Republic of Korea, the general forum shall be recognized. Thus, in the absence of special circumstances that lead to extremely unfair results in light of the ideology of the Civil Procedure Act, it shall be reasonable to recognize the jurisdiction of our court, in principle, even if the dispute is not about the business of a branch of a foreign corporation in the Republic of Korea.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant is a Chinese corporation established under Chinese law and has its principal office in China. However, the defendant's business office in Jongno-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) 20 building in the Republic of Korea. Even though the lawsuit in this case is not related to the above business, and the above business office does not take part in the notification bank in relation to the letter of credit in this case, it does not seem that there are special circumstances against the fair and fair trial between the parties, and therefore, it is judged that the Republic of Korea has jurisdiction in this case. This decision is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law as pointed out.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In determining the contents and interpreting the meaning of the foreign law applicable to a conflict of interest case, the foreign law should be interpreted and applied in accordance with the meaning and content of the foreign law actually interpreted and applied in its own country. In the event that there is a defect in the foreign law applicable in the course of the lawsuit or there is no submission of materials about its existence, if it is impossible to confirm the contents, the court shall follow the foreign customary law in accordance with the general principles of the civil law concerning the court (court). If it is impossible to confirm the contents of the customary law, the foreign customary law shall be judged by the cooking. If possible, the contents of the cooking shall be supplemented by the overall and systematic order of the foreign law in order to take the most close solution to the original applicable foreign law, and in this sense, it may be inferred that the law that is deemed most similar to the foreign law can be inferred with the contents of the cooking.

In light of the records, the case where the plaintiff, a Korean legal entity, sought payment of the price of the credit to the defendant, a Chinese legal entity, the issuing bank of each of the above L/C, as the negotiating bank of bills of exchange, shipping documents, etc. under each of the above L/C was established by the defendant, a foreign legal entity. Each of the above L/C in this case is a dispute in accordance with the international living relationship. The parties to each of the above L/C in this case shall be governed by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits as amended in 1983, 1983, 1.C.C. 400, hereinafter referred to as 400, hereinafter referred to as the "UCP"), since there is no agreement on the governing law other than the UCP, first of all, as to the issuing bank's obligation to pay under the L/C in this case's L/C, the issuing bank's duty to pay the bill of exchange under Article 9 and 11 (1) of the UCP will be the governing law of the L/C.

However, when each bill of exchange of this case is presented to the payer and accepted on a conditional basis, it constitutes a case where there is no law regulating the relation of the bill in China, and even according to all evidence submitted by the parties, it is impossible to confirm the contents of the customary law governing the acceptance of the bill in China, and thus, the court should decide upon the record. The contents of the record can be inferred by referring to the bill of exchange in China, which was enacted on May 10, 1995, and enforced from January 1, 1996, after the presentation of the bill of exchange in this case, which is deemed most similar to the law applicable to the relation of the bill in China at that time in accordance with the above legal principles.

Although the judgment of the court below on this part is inadequate, the decision of the court below is just in its conclusion, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the law or incomplete deliberation.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

A. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Article 16 (d) and (e) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 4), the issuing bank intends to refuse to accept the documents on the ground that the presented documents are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the L/C, the issuing bank shall notify without delay the bank that sent the documents. Such notice must specify whether the issuing bank refuses to accept the documents and whether the documents are in custody or not, and if the issuing bank fails to take such measures, or if the issuing bank keeps the documents at the disposal of the presenter or fails to return them to the presenter, the issuing bank loses its right to assert that the documents do not comply with the terms and conditions of the L/C applicant's L/C applicant's acceptance and/or other terms and conditions of the L/C applicant's refusal to accept the documents on the condition that the L/C applicant would return them. Thus, the court below determined that each of the above L/C applicant's acceptance and/or other conditional acceptance of the documents cannot be viewed as being in accord with the terms and conditions of the L/C applicant's acceptance.

B. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below on the above part for the following reasons.

First, according to the reasoning of the court below and the record, the credit of this case, which was established by the defendant as the beneficiary of non-party 3-S-0648 of the non-party 2's request for the issuance of the letter of credit by the non-party 3-S-064 of the non-party 2's shipping site export base development project in China, contains special conditions that the defendant will accept a bill of exchange in compliance with the conditions of the letter of credit, and pay it at maturity. This case's letter of credit contains special conditions that the non-party 2-31-N0648 of the letter of credit issued by the Seoul branch or the L07H9312N0413 of the letter of credit issued by the non-party 2-3's Seoul branch, and that the above special conditions were inserted into the letter of credit of this case's letter of credit, which is the non-party 3-party 2's non-party 3-party 2's non-party 3-party 2's shipping site.

Therefore, when the plaintiff who purchased the letter of credit containing such special conditions presents the bill of exchange and shipping documents issued in accordance with the letter of credit of this case to the defendant who is the issuing bank, the issuing bank of the letter of credit, the defendant's notification that the defendant would accept the letter of credit of this case in the same way as the first conditions for the letter of credit when confirming the maturity of the bill of exchange and on the condition that he would receive the price of the letter of credit of this case, is accepted under the terms and conditions of the original agreement. Although the bill of exchange issued in accordance with the letter of credit of this case is included among the presented documents, it cannot be deemed that the defendant has the duty to accept it to the defendant before receiving the price of other letter of credit of this case, and since there is no fact that the defendant did not perform the bill of exchange by stating the purpose of conditional acceptance on the bill of exchange and signing and sealing it as the payer or the payer's representative, it cannot be deemed that

In addition, Article 16 (e) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCPS) provides that where an issuing bank intends to refuse to accept a document on the ground of a disagreement in the document presented, the issuing bank shall lose its right to assert that the document does not comply with the conditions of the letter of credit if it did not notify the presenter and return the document without delay. The purport of the provision is that even if there is a disagreement in the document presented by the letter of credit, if the issuing bank does not take measures such as notifying the presenter, the issuing bank shall not claim the disagreement and assume the payment obligation under the original terms and conditions of the letter of credit. Since there is no notification of the disagreement, the issuing bank shall not allow the beneficiary of the letter of credit or the negotiating bank thereafter to acquire new rights that had not been previously existed. Thus, the plaintiff who is the negotiating bank of the letter of credit of credit of this case may still claim the price of the letter of credit of this case on the condition that the provisions of the special conditions of this case are fulfilled, and it shall not be deemed that the claim for payment without complete application of the above special conditions occurs to the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's acceptance of bill of exchange and other shipping documents on the condition of the fulfillment of the special conditions stipulated in the letter of credit of this case constitutes rejection of acceptance, and therefore, the defendant, who did not immediately return them, lost the right to assert that the documents are not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, and thus, the defendant ultimately held that the defendant bears an unconditional obligation to pay for the letter of credit regardless of the special conditions stipulated in the original letter of credit. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presentation and receipt of the letter of credit documents and the 4th

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)