[1] The court's measures where it is impossible to confirm the contents of foreign law applicable to a conflict of interest case

[2] Whether it is illegal that the applicable law to a conflict of interest case is not expressly specified (negative)

[1] The foreign law should be interpreted and applied in accordance with the meaning, content, and actual interpretation and application of the foreign law to be applied to a conflict of case. However, if it is impossible to confirm the contents because data on the foreign precedents or interpretation standards are not submitted during the course of the lawsuit, the court shall only determine the meaning and contents of the law in accordance with the general standard of interpretation of the law.

[2] Since it is impossible to confirm the contents of a foreign case or standard of interpretation that applies to the pertinent case in the course of a lawsuit because data on the foreign case or standard of interpretation is not submitted, if the court confirmed the meaning and contents of the foreign law in accordance with the general standard of interpretation of the law, it is not erroneous even if the

[1] Articles 1 and 9 of the Conflict of Laws / [2] Articles 1 and 9 of the Conflict of Laws

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu20252 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1043), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu19470 delivered on February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1060), Supreme Court Decision 91Da41897 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong192, 2551) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Da1112 delivered on December 13, 198 (Gong1989, 94)

Cho Heung Bank (Law Firm Han-dong, Law Office of Korea, Attorneys Yu Ho-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na64585, 64592 delivered on May 12, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below erred in applying Korean law as the governing law with regard to the establishment and validity of the L/C transaction agreement of this case and the contract of this case.

Although the foreign law should be interpreted and applied in accordance with the meaning, content, and actual interpretation and application of the foreign law to be applied to a conflict of interest case, if it is impossible to confirm the contents because the foreign precedents or materials relating to the interpretation standards are not submitted during the course of the lawsuit, the court shall only determine the meaning and contents of the law in accordance with the general legal interpretation standards (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu19470 delivered on February 22, 191).

According to the records, the L/C transaction agreement of this case was concluded between the plaintiff bank (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter the plaintiff bank)'s point in the U.S. sandbco and the non-party E.I.S. Corporation established under the laws of the State of L.G. International Corporation (hereinafter the non-party company). The contract of this case was concluded between the above branch of the plaintiff bank and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter the defendant) who is a national in California, and according to the contract of the form of the contract in English at the time, the contract of this case was concluded between the above branch of the plaintiff bank and the above defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter the defendant). However, the court below did not provide for the law of the State of California as to the interpretation, validity, performance, etc. of each of the above contracts between each party. Thus, since it is impossible to verify the contents of the contract of this case because data on the precedent or interpretation criteria of the State of California to be applied to each of the contract of this case were not submitted in the course of the lawsuit, the court below determined the meaning of California law, and its contents.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's assertion that the guarantee contract of this case was invalidated since the contract of this case agreed that the limit transaction approval would take effect at the main office of the plaintiff bank, and the approval was not granted, there is no provision on the guarantee contract of this case, etc. Rather, the contents of the guarantee contract of this case can be acknowledged that the defendant agreed to guarantee all obligations that the non-party company would incur due to the financial transaction with the main office and branch of the plaintiff bank, and even if the guarantee contract of this case is premised on the consent of the main office as the defendant's assertion, the contents of the guarantee contract of this case in the financial transaction are not likely to either due to or different from the financial transaction in accordance with the limit transaction approval, and since the contract of this case was made between the non-party company and the plaintiff bank after the guarantee contract of this case, it cannot be exempted from the obligation under the guarantee contract of this case. In light of the records, the fact finding and judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as litigation.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, the court below's decision that the non-party company granted all rights of representation to the non-party regarding the purchase, etc. of non-indicted coal in the U.S. and the above power of representation included the right of representation regarding the issuance, etc. of the letter of credit of this case is just and there is no violation of

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the local letter of credit of this case was opened within the scope of the principal letter of credit within the scope of the non-party, the applicant's agent, and therefore the defendant cannot raise an objection to the contents of the letter of credit. Thus, it is difficult for the above branch's employees to be negligent on the ground that the defendant, the representative director of the non-party company, did not have any objection to the specific contents of the letter of credit of this case and did not obtain confirmation or approval as to the issuance of the letter of credit of this case. Furthermore, since the letter of credit of this case was not attached at the time of the issuance of the letter of credit of this case, it was subsequently supplemented, and the sales contract was actually concluded between the non-party company and the beneficiary, it is difficult to conclude that there was a proximate causal relation with the damage that the employees of the above branch did not confirm the letter of credit of this case caused the non-party company. In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of law

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)