Details of the obligation to investigate incidental documents stipulated in the credit of the negotiating bank for a local letter of credit;

According to Articles 7 through 9 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits applied to the operation of a documentary credit by a local letter of credit, the parties concerned, including banks, etc., are merely obligated to examine whether the relevant documents comply with the terms and conditions of the credit, and there is no obligation or liability to investigate the type, sufficiency, authenticity, forgery, or the amount of goods indicated on the legal effect or document, quality, and existence of the goods indicated on the document. Thus, in purchasing a bill of exchange by a local letter of credit, the bank confirms that the receipt of the goods, which is one of the ancillary documents attached to the relevant letter of credit, has become the name of the representative A of the issuing company, whose seal and written declaration are affixed at the time of the purchase of the bill of exchange by the bank under the local letter of credit, even if the document was falsely prepared by a person who is without the authority to be dismissed from the representative of the above company as a director of the above company, it would be sufficient to perform the duty to examine the necessary documents. At the time of purchase, the issuing company's credit has deteriorated, and the above regular document cannot be prepared.

Articles 7 and 9 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Seoul Trust Bank (Law Firm Hann-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na1959 delivered on September 7, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below found that the non-party 1 did not have a duty to verify the facts that the non-party 2 was the representative of the issuing bank of the above letter of credit or the non-party 2's delivery of the non-party 1's documentary credit, and that the non-party 1's letter of credit and/or the non-party 2's delivery of the non-party 1's documentary credit and/or the non-party 2's delivery of the non-party 1's documentary credit issued the above letter of credit and/or the non-party 1's delivery of the non-party 1's documentary credit and/or non-party 2's delivery of the non-party 1's documentary credit and/or non-party 2's delivery of the non-party 1's documentary credit and/or non-party 2's delivery of the non-party 1's documentary credit and/or non-party 2's delivery of the non-party 1's documentary credit and/or non-party 1's delivery of the above facts.

Examining the evidence at the time of the original trial, the above fact-finding by the original court is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment, and the court below's above determination is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment.

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice) since the number of Sho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho (Presiding Justice) is during business trip, it is impossible to sign and seal