205Gahap26270 on the letter of credit

AAA Bank

1. BB bank headquarters;

2. The cCC bank headquarters;

March 14, 2007

June 13, 2007

1. Defendant BB Bank shall pay to the Plaintiff 1,729,749.88 US dollars and 750,789.78 US dollars from October 29, 2005 with respect to US$ 108,019.52 from November 2, 2005; US$ 502,843.88 from November 3, 2005 with respect to US$ 368,096.70 from November 9, 2005 to January 4, 2006; and 20% with respect to US$ 368,096.70 from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant CCC bank is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB bank is borne by the same Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant CCC bank is borne by each Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. The part of the claim against Defendant BB Bank

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

2. The part on the claim against Defendant CCC Bank

As to US$ 858,809.30 and US$ 750,789.78 among US$ 1,729,749.88, jointly and severally with Defendant BB bank, Defendant CCC bank pays 5% per annum from October 29, 2005 to the delivery date of each complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-1-6, Gap evidence 11-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-1-1-5, Eul evidence 2-2-1 through 5, Eul evidence 2-3-1 through 5, Eul evidence 2-1-4-1 through 5, Eul evidence 2-3-1 through 5, Eul evidence 3-3-1 through 6, Eul evidence 3-2-5, and Eul evidence 2-5, and the fact inquiry results with respect to ○○○ Stock Company in this court:

(a) the issuance of the credit by Defendant BB Bank;

(1) The export award, a corporation located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "export award") shall be exported to the import award in Japan, in excess of 1,042.018 tons of "Alminium AD12" (hereinafter referred to as "Alminium") on the import award in Japan, and the price shall be settled by the credit method.

(2) Accordingly, Defendant BB bank (hereinafter “Defendant BB bank”) requested the issuance of the credit. On September 21, 2005 and October 11, 2005, Defendant BB bank (hereinafter “Defendant BB bank”) made two of the following items exported to the beneficiary, and opened two of the non-distinctive Credit Terms and Conditions as follows (hereinafter “the first and second Credit Terms and Conditions”) in the form of SIFT at each time. At each time, the Plaintiff notified the export of the first and second Credit through the Plaintiff. The fifth revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UN) was applied to the first and second Credit.

(A) The first L/C No. 1) No. 1: S-00-000002, the date of issue: 3) the effective period of 2005. 0. 00. 3: the amount of 5) import consignor: US$830,000: the port of loading: the port of loading: the port of loading: the port of loading: the port of loading.

9) Product description: Aluminium 500 ton, USD 1,660 ton of a character;

10) Requirement Document: Three originals of the commercial invoice signed, endorsement in blank with the direction of the consignor, indication as the advance payment of the freight, and two copies of the traditional unclaimed bill of lading and packing specifications, as the notice is referred to below:

11) Additional Conditions: The amount and quantity of the credit shall be 5 per cent error.

12) Presentation period: Shipping documents must be presented within 15 days after the date of shipment, but must be within the effective time limit of the credit.

13) Instructionss with respect to payment, acceptance, and negotiating bank: A reimbursement by telecommunication is prohibited, and the negotiating bank shall send two copies of the bill of exchange and all shipping documents to the point at which they come out of the Bank. Defendant BB bank shall, in exchange for shipping documents, transmit the amount under the direction of the negotiating bank, in exchange for the shipping documents, in the event the defective documents are presented under the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, deduct the amount of 47 US dollars from the amount of commission. This clause shall be expressed in the documents requesting the purchase, and this fee shall be borne by the beneficiary.

14) Notice of credit: The credit notice is sent to the plaintiff.

(B) No. 1) No. 2 Credit Number: S-00-00002) Issuance date: 2005.00

3) Other points are the same as described in the first letter of credit.

B. Plaintiff’s purchase of bills of exchange and shipping documents from the Plaintiff’s export, and Defendant BB Bank’s claim for payment of the first and second letters of credit

(1) On October 17, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased bills of exchange and shipping documents issued by Defendant BBB bank as the payer for the amount of USD 750,789.78 with respect to Aluminium 452,283km (container 21 portion) shipped on the part of the export on the first letter of credit in relation to the first letter of credit; and (b) on October 18, 2005, with respect to Aluminium 65,072km (container 3 parts) shipped on the part of the first letter of credit.

The bill of exchange and shipping documents issued by Defendant BB Bank as the drawee shall be purchased at US$108,019.52. ③ On October 19, 2005, the bill of exchange and shipping documents issued by Defendant BB Bank as the payer shall be purchased at US$502,843.88 with respect to the bill of exchange and shipping documents issued by Defendant BB Bank as the payer in relation to the second letter of credit (container 7 portion). ④ on October 21, 2005, the bill of exchange and shipping documents issued by Defendant BB Bank as the payer in relation to the second letter of credit were purchased at US$368,096.70 each (in sequence, hereinafter referred to as “purchase”)

(2) At each time, the Plaintiff presented to Defendant BB bank bills and shipping documents related to the bills of exchange and shipping documents related to the first or fourth bills of exchange, and demanded payment of the first and second letters of credit. Defendant CCC bank’s purchase of bills of exchange, shipping documents, and claim for part of the first letter of credit payment against Defendant BB bank.

On the other hand, on October 7, 2005, Defendant CCC bank purchased bills of exchange and shipping documents (this amount is a part of the first letter of credit amount) issued by Defendant BB bank as the payer with respect to A.I.D. 147,373 km which was shipped on the part of the first letter of credit in relation to the export. At that time, Defendant BB bank requested the payment of part of the first letter of credit amount by presenting the said bill of exchange and shipping documents to Defendant BB bank at that time. Defendant BB bank examined the above shipping documents and paid USD 244,639.18 to Defendant CB bank.

D. Defendant BB Bank’s refusal to pay for the letter of credit Nos. 1 and 2

(1) Defendant BB bank rejected payment of USD 750,789.78 on October 28, 2005 on the letter of credit for the first L/C purchase, on the ground that: (a) Defendant CCC bank has already paid USD 244,639.18 on the part of the first L/C purchase; (b) there is no on board notation on each bill of lading related to the first and second bills of credit; and (c) there is no on board notation on each bill of lading related to the first and second bills of credit; and (d) the description of goods on each commercial invoice related to the first and second bills of credit is inconsistent with the specification of the goods on the first letter of credit. On November 28, 2005, Defendant CCC bank refused payment of USD 750,789.78 on the first letter of credit for the first bills of credit for the first bills of credit; and (e) refused payment of USD 108,19.52 on November 2, 2005.

(2) Defendant BB bank rejected payment of USD 502,843.88 on November 2, 2005 for the third purchase on the ground that each bill of lading related to the third and fourth purchase and each commercial invoice do not comply with the terms and conditions of the second letter of credit (the above, 2.3 reasons). Defendant BB bank rejected payment of USD 368,096.70 on November 8, 2005 for the fourth purchase.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant BB Bank

A. The assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) The Plaintiff (A) purchased a counterfeited bill of lading (No. 3-6; hereinafter referred to as "the forged bill of lading of this case") in the shipping documents at the time of the purchase of the bill of exchange and shipping documents related to the first letter of credit from export, without properly verifying the fact that there was sufficient reason to suspect that the forged bill of exchange (No. 3-6; hereinafter referred to as "the forged bill of lading of this case") was forged or forged, and Defendant BB bank also purchased the relevant counterfeited bill of credit without properly confirming it. Although there was sufficient reason to suspect that it was forged or forged at the time of the receipt by Defendant CCC bank of the falsified bill of this case, it did not properly confirm it and paid $ 244,639.18 related to the letter of credit amount to Defendant CCC bank. Accordingly, the Plaintiff could not refuse payment of the first letter of credit amount on the ground that the amount related to the purchase exceeds the limit of the first letter of credit amount, and (b) the shipping documents related to the purchase of No. 1 through No. 4 is liable to the Plaintiff. 1BB.

(2) Defendant BB Bank’s assertion

In this regard, Defendant BB bank asserts that the payment of the first and second letters of credit is justified, since the shipping documents related to the first and fourth bills of credit related to them do not comply with the terms and conditions of the first and second letters of credit as follows.

(A) The limit amount of the first letter of credit related to the first letter of credit related to the second letter of credit is US$ 871,500, the amount of the bill of exchange that can be issued to the maximum extent, taking into account 5% of the permissible error, has already been paid US$ 244,639.18 in relation to the first letter of credit by Defendant BB Bank, and the amount of the bill of exchange that can be issued thereafter can be limited to US$ 626,860.82, however, the amount of the bill of exchange for the first letter of credit presented by the Plaintiff exceeds US$ 750,789.78, and the amount of the bill of exchange for the second letter of credit presented by the Plaintiff exceeds the limit amount of the first letter of credit.

(B) In the first and second letters of credit, each bill of lading related to the first to the fourth bills of lading is merely written in advance printed on the left bottom of the bill of lading as the required documents of these letters of credit, and there is no signature on the signature column below the above phrase, and therefore, the bill of lading related to the first to the first to fourth bills of lading cannot be deemed to have re-writtened.

(C) Of the goods specifications of the 1 and 2 letters of credit, the parts of “MAIN JAPE PES PTRT” and the parts of “NGYA” among the goods specifications of each commercial invoice related to the 1 to 4th purchases are inconsistent with each other.

B. Determination

(1) We examine whether the amount of bill of exchange relating to the bill of exchange Nos. 1 and 2 purchased exceeds the limit of the first letter of credit.

(A) A transaction by a documentary credit is not in essence a transaction by goods, and thus, the bank must check whether the shipping documents are in accord with the terms and conditions of the documentary credit. Since the bank is not obligated to actually examine the shipping documents, if the shipping documents were forged, the bank is a party involved in the transaction or knew of the forgery of the documents, or there is sufficient reason to suspect such forgery, it is nothing more than a fraudulent transaction under the independence and abstractness of the documentary credit. Thus, if the shipping documents were forged, the bank cannot be protected under the principle of independence and abstractness of the documentary credit. Thus, there was sufficient reason to suspect that the documents were forged at the time when the issuing bank performed its duty of redemption. Further, if the negotiating bank was related to the negotiating party, or was aware that the documents were forged at the time of negotiation, or that there was sufficient reason to suspect that they were forged or forged documents, the issuing bank should refuse to redeem the documentary credit documents, and even if it did not have a right to demand reimbursement of the shipping documents to the issuing bank, it cannot be held to the issuing bank.

(B) Examining this case in light of the above legal principles, considering the evidence No. 1, No. 12, 8, and 10 of the evidence No. 2, No. 5 of the evidence No. 3 through No. 6 of the bill of lading No. 3 of this case, and the whole purport of the pleading No. 6 of the bill of lading No. 3 of this case is as follows: (a) the forged bill of lading No. 1 was issued with forged signature of the carrier; (b) the consignee column on the face of the bill of lading No. 4 of this case stated that "ORPP" was stated as the "OP No. 4 of this case's bill of lading No. 1 of this case's bill of lading No. 6 of this case's bill of lading No. 1 of this case's bill of lading No. 6 of this case's bill of lading No. 1 of this case's bill of lading No. 6 of this case's bill of lading No. 3 of this case's bill of lading No.

(C) Therefore, even though Defendant BB bank rejected the claim for reimbursement of USD 244,639.18 of the Defendant CCC bank, it cannot refuse payment of the first L/C amount on the ground that the bill of exchange related to the first and second L/C purchase exceeds the limit of the first L/C amount, on the ground that the purchase of the authentic shipping documents related to the first L/C would have been erroneously paid, and on the contrary, it would not refuse payment of the first L/C amount.

(2) We examine whether each bill of lading relating to the purchase items 1 to 4 has been properly marked on board.

(A) According to Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, in the case of a received bill of lading which has not been loaded prior to the issuance of the bill of lading, only the fact that the cargo was loaded on board or loaded on the designated vessel on the bill of lading and the date of loading on the ship must be specified (Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, and Article 27 (b) of the 4th Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provide that the issuer shall write his signature on the bill of lading when the completion of loading and the date thereof are stated on the bill of lading, but Article 23 (a) (ii) of the 5th UCP amended does not stipulate any provision as to whether the cargo was loaded on the on-board vessel without removing this part. Therefore, the signature of the carrier or its agent on the on-board notation is unnecessary.

(B) In light of the above legal principles, each bill of lading related to Nos. 1 through 4-5 of the No. 2-1 to No. 4-5 of the No. 1 to No. 2 was received, and each bill of lading related to Nos. 1 to No. 4 was written at the bottom of the left side in the bill of lading, with the meaning of "LADEN ON NOHH VESSAL" at the bottom of the bill of lading, and the bottom date is written at October 17, 2005; 18, Oct. 18, 2005; 19, Oct. 19, 2005; and Oct. 21, 2005. Accordingly, each bill of lading was written at the bottom of each bill of lading.

(3) Finally, we examine whether the description of goods in each commercial invoice relating to the items in paragraphs (1) through (4) is consistent with the description of goods in the first and second letters of credit.

(A) According to Article 13(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, “the bank shall examine with due care to verify whether all the documents agreed to in the credit are not consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit on its face. Whether the agreed documents conform to the terms and conditions of the credit on its face shall be determined by international standard banking trade customs as reflected in these rules. The documents are deemed inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the credit on their face with those of the other documents.” Article 37(c) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that “the name of the goods in a commercial invoice shall be written in a general manner not inconsistent with the contents of the credit.” This provision provides that “The description of the goods in all other documents shall be written in a general manner not inconsistent with the contents of the credit.” It does not mean that the wording of the documents must be strictly consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit, and if there is a little difference between the documents attached to the credit and the documents attached thereto, it does not interfere with the protection of the credit and the client’s payment of the terms and conditions of the credit.

By doing so, whether the difference between the terms and conditions of the credit is permissible in light of international standard bank transaction practices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da63691, Jun. 28, 2002).

(B) In light of the above legal principles, the article description of the 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd 1 to 4th 2nd , and 1 to 2nd 5th , each of the above 1st 2th 2th 1st 2th 1st 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3.

(4) In full view of the above circumstances, as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the first and second credit payments for the first and second credit bills against the Plaintiff’s 1 through 4 purchase, Defendant BB bank cannot be deemed to constitute a justifiable ground for refusal of payment. Thus, Defendant BB bank is liable to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of USD 1,729,749.88 (= USD 750,789.78 + USD 108,000 + USD 52,019.52 + USD 502,843.88 + USD 368,096.70) for the first and second credit payments for the first and fourth purchase.

3. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant CCC Bank

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant CCC bank is jointly and severally liable with Defendant BB bank for damages on the ground that Defendant CCC bank received 24,639.18 U.S. dollars from Defendant BB bank and received 244,639.18 U.S. dollars from Defendant BB bank, and later rejected payment from Defendant CCC bank later on the ground that it exceeded the limit of the limit of the first L/C amount, on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to receive 858,809.30 U.S. dollars for the first L/C purchase of the first L/C purchase of the first L/C purchase of the first L/C of this case, since Defendant CCC bank suffered damages due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive 85,809.30 U.S. dollars for the first L/C purchase of the first and second L/C purchase of the second L/.

B. Determination

(1) First, it is recognized that the above Note 1 (a) (i) was the health of the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff stated the phrase "the purchasing price of the bill of exchange on the back of the first letter of credit" on the first letter of credit, and that the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff's claim for payment of the bill of exchange related to the first and second bills of exchange on the back of the original copy of the first letter of credit, in full view of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; and (b) the purport of the entire argument as to the fact-finding as to the fact-finding on the back of the first letter of credit; (c) the Plaintiff thought that the amount of the bill of exchange related to the first and second bills of exchange does not exceed the limit amount of the first letter of credit; and (d) therefore, Defendant BB bank has already paid part of the first letter of credit amount to Defendant CCC bank; and therefore, (d) refused the Plaintiff's claim for payment of the bill of exchange related to the first and second bills of exchange on the ground that the amount exceeds the limit amount of the first letter of credit amount.

However, the above phrase stated to prevent the negotiating bank from receiving reimbursement of the amount of the letter of credit on the ground that the negotiating bank purchased the bill of exchange and other shipping documents in duplicate after the purchasing bank did not state the amount of the bill of exchange on the back of the letter of credit when negotiating the bill of exchange and other shipping documents, and then the negotiating bank did not state the amount of the bill of exchange on the back of the letter of credit. Thus, the negotiating bank purchased the bill of exchange, such as shipping documents, because it did not state the amount of the bill of exchange on the back of the letter of credit when negotiating the bill of exchange and did not redeem the amount of the bill of exchange, and then the negotiating bank cannot recover the amount of the bill of exchange on the ground that the amount of the bill of exchange exceeds the limit of the letter of credit, and then the negotiating bank can be held liable for damages due to the error of the negotiating bank, as seen in the above 2.1. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the letter of credit payment cannot be viewed as a violation of the plaintiff's claim.

(2) Next, as seen in paragraph (1) (2) above, Defendant CCC bank exercised due care at the time of purchasing a bill of exchange, such as the instant forged bill of lading, even if it could have sufficiently known that the instant bill of lading was forged, it is merely a duty to bear the said duty to prevent damages and not a duty to bear the Plaintiff, which is a subsequent purchasing bank, in order to prevent damages to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Therefore, even if Defendant CCC Bank erred as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff at the time of purchasing the first letter of credit and the instant forged bill of lading, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have suffered damages on the letter of credit. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant CCC Bank cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to USD 1,729,749.88 and USD 750,789 among them, Defendant CCC bank is liable to the Plaintiff for delay payment from October 29, 2005 to October 29, 2005 (the date of October 28, 2005 of the purport of the claim is deemed to be the clerical error of October 29, 2005), with respect to USD 108,019.52 from November 2, 2005 to 502,843.8, the following day after the date of notification of the refusal to pay the second purchase, the Plaintiff’s claim for delay payment from the date of notification of the refusal to pay the third purchase shall be dismissed by 10% of the following day after the date of notification of the refusal to pay the third purchase, and the Plaintiff’s claim for delay payment from 2005 to 368,70.70% of the following day of each of the above decision shall be dismissed.

The presiding judge, the Park Jae-soo

Judges Lee Young-young

Judges Jeong-jin