[1] The requirements for loading on board as the acceptance requirement of the received bill of lading under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits 5th Amendment and the standard for determining whether such requirements are met

[2] Conditions required in relation to loading on board a vessel designated on the 5th Amendment of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits where the name of the vessel is stated on the face of the bill of lading in relation to the designation of the vessel or similar conditions

[3] In a case where a letter of credit allowing the transshipment of cargo and a bill of lading contain additional descriptions on a ship at the port of transshipment on the premise of transshipment, whether such descriptions are inconsistent with other descriptions on the bill of lading or violate the conditions and conditions of the letter of credit (negative)

[4] Where an issuing bank that received credit and related documents from the negotiating bank under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits for the fifth Amendment refuses to pay the credit amount on the ground of defects in the credit and documents, whether the issuing bank shall specifically notify the negotiating bank of all the grounds for rejection within the stipulated period (affirmative)

[5] The case holding that where the issuing bank of the letter of credit notifies the negotiating bank that there is an indication of "the vessel to be loaded at the time of transshipment and its substitute vessel" on the continuous face of the bill of lading as a defect of the bill of lading, it cannot be deemed that the consignee of the bill of lading stated additional information about the vessel to arrive at the final port of unloading and it is not in violation

[6] The case holding that the issuing bank of the letter of credit cannot give rise to a question no longer because it did not give notice to the negotiating bank as defect, in the case where there is a printed phrase "intendedves" on the face of the bill of lading, the name of the ship at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading

[1] Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) provides that if the L/C requires a bill of lading applicable to port shipment, the fact of shipment of the cargo may be indicated in accordance with the pre-printed wording on the bill of lading (in the case of a loading bill of lading), but in the case of a received bill of lading which has not been loaded prior to the issuance of the bill of lading, the fact that the cargo has been loaded on board or shipped on the designated ship and the date of loading on board must be specified (in the case of a received bill of lading, it cannot be confirmed solely by the description whether the cargo has been normally loaded on the designated ship. Thus, it is intended to clarify such fact in the bill of lading to clarify the legal relations of the parties in accordance with the loading on the bill of lading. Thus, whether the loading date required by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits is legitimate or not should be determined strictly based on the pertinent bill of lading without referring to other documents related to the letter of credit.

[2] Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) specifies the vessel's "in relation to the bill of lading" or similar conditions, even if the cargo was loaded on the designated vessel, the loading of the cargo on the bill of lading must be stated on the date of loading and the name of the vessel on the bill of lading. This is because it is improper to impose on the bank the burden of the judgment on the bill of lading if it is not known that the loading of the cargo on the bill of lading was loaded on the scheduled vessel on the bill of lading, due to the limited phrase, such as the "preed vessel", etc. on the name of the vessel mentioned on the bill of lading, or whether the loading of the cargo was made on the bill of lading, or if it is not known that the loading of the cargo was made at the port of loading to the port of unloading on the bill of lading.

[3] If the bill of lading provides for the vessel name and the shipping process at the time the shipment was conducted in accordance with the conditions of the port of loading and unloading of the goods stated in the letter of credit while allowing the transshipment of the goods, it cannot be deemed that the additional information stated in the bill of lading for the convenience of the consignee is inconsistent with the other entry in the bill of lading or is inconsistent with the conditions of the other letter of credit, unless there are special circumstances where it is apparent that the description is stated in the bill of lading for the convenience of the consignee.

[4] Article 14 (d) (i) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) provides that "if an issuing bank and/or confirming bank (if any) or a designated bank acting therefor decides to refuse documents, it shall notify the issuing bank of the purport of refusal by telegraph or by other prompt means if it is impossible to use the documents without delay until the closing of the 7 banking business day from the date following the date of receipt of the documents until the 7 banking business day. Such notification must be given to the bank which sent the documents directly from the beneficiary if it receives the documents." In addition, Article 14 (d) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) provides that "if it gives such notice, it shall specify all defects which it refused to issue documents, and at the same time, it shall state whether the issuing bank keeps them in custody or is returning them to the presenter." In light of the purport of the above provision, if the issuing bank presented from the negotiating bank refuses to pay the credit and the related documents on grounds of defects, the issuing bank shall not specify the new reason for refusal.

[5] The case holding that, where the issuing bank of the letter of credit notifies the negotiating bank that there is an indication of the "vessel to be loaded on the continuous face of the bill of lading" and its substitute vessel on the bill of lading's defect notification, unless the bill of lading clearly indicates that the vessel is scheduled to be transshipped and the bill of lading satisfies all other conditions such as the loading port and the port of unloading required by the letter of credit, the name of the vessel scheduled to be loaded at the port of transshipment and its substitute vessel cannot be seen as violating the terms and conditions of the letter of credit as stated in the letter of credit, since the vessel's name and its substitute vessel scheduled to be loaded at the port of loading at the port of loading at the first port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading at the first port of loading at the port of loading, the vessel's name cannot be identified in the bill of lading, unless otherwise required by the letter of credit.

[6] The case holding that, in case where the person whose date of receiving the cargo was expressed in the form of a bill of lading, the shipping date in the column indicating the date of loading is written by the item item on the date of issuance of the bill of lading, and there is a printed phrase "inwards" on the face of the bill of lading, in principle, the name of the ship which was loaded at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the bill of lading, since the issuing bank of the letter of credit did not notify the negotiating bank of the reason as a defect during the period of investigation on the

[1] Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 5th Revision) / [2] Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 / [3] Article 13 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 / [4] Article 14 (d) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 / [5] Article 13 (a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (193 / [6] Article 14 (d) and Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (193 5th Revision) (193

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29469 decided Oct. 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2677)/ [4] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da60296 decided Oct. 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2663)

New Rashing Co., Ltd.

Defendant (Attorney Yang Sung-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na28000, 28017 delivered on November 9, 2001

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Review of the evidence and records presented by the court below reveals the following facts.

(a) export contracts and the establishment of letters of credit;

Around May 7, 1999, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) engaged in an industrial machinery export business under the trade name of M.K. trading company entered into an export contract with the Hong Kong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “KTRS TRS TRS TPPS STD”) with the Defendant during the 58,850 kilograms of textile Manufacturing Machinery (hereinafter “the Cargo of this case”) in USD 236,129 for the amount of USD 236,129 for the direct goods company (SONGGE TRAL MPP. LTD.) to which the actual buyer actually purchased the goods, and the term of validity of the L/C of this case was cancelled by the beneficiary of this case 91.29,296,299, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196,2, 196, 2, 2,2, 396,

B. Details of the Credit of this case

The letter of credit of this case requires the shipment of cargo until July 30, 1999, and the carriage is made through the Sagle in Bangladesh in Korea. The presentation of shipping documents must be made within 15 days from the date following the date of shipment, and must be made within the validity period of the letter of credit. The required documents and the shipping documents necessary under the special order is one of the necessary shipping documents, and the L/C of this case requires the L/C of this case to be a non-place shipping bill of lading (CLE SHIPED OBD OBD OBD DBD DBD draft draft draft, and the 5th Amendment of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UNFCCC), UNCITRM CUOTR CCROTROOOOTROOOOOTRALS, 1993 REISSS, 1993 REITNN, 1905 U.S.C. 194.).

(c) Transport contracts and carriage of cargo;

On June 29, 199, the defendant entered into a transportation brokerage contract with the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter "the plaintiff") who is engaged in the maritime cargo forwarding business, to transport the cargo of this case through the saccination through the saccination in Busan (hereinafter "the transportation brokerage contract of this case"). On June 30, 1999, the plaintiff entered into a transportation contract with the defendant to transport the cargo of this case from the Busan to the saccination through the saccination. On June 30, 199, the plaintiff transported the cargo of this case (the name of the ship: NEDLOGM YM 10WM 28). The plaintiff transported the cargo of this case (the name of the ship: NEDLOM YGM 100WM 28).

(d) Issuance of bills of lading;

On July 1, 1999, prior to actual shipment of the freight of this case, Orsel issued a bill of lading (DET CAE CATRIVD) on July 1, 1999, and the shipment date (DETE POEN ONOD) on public column (the bill of lading No. 12-2, B, 6; hereinafter referred to as the "receiving bill of lading of this case") on the Plaintiff's request (the bill of lading of this case was delivered on July 1, 1999 as of the date of shipment as required by the Defendant) and delivered the bill of lading of this case (the bill of this case No. 1, No. 7-2, No. 999) on July 1, 199, the bill of lading of this case was delivered to the Defendant on July 1, 199, and the bill of lading of this case was delivered to the Defendant on July 1, 199.

E. Details of the bill of lading of this case

이 사건 선하증권에는 화물을 표면상 정상적인 상태에서 수취하였음을 나타내는 인쇄문구(Received the described goods or packages or ...in apparent good order....)와 함께 미리 인쇄된 '(예정된) 선박'{(INTENDED) +VESSEL / VOYAGE / FLAG}란에는 'DUTCH NEDLLOYD EUROPA 10WM28'라는 선박의 이름이 타이프되어 있었고, '화물수령일'(DATE CARGO RECEIVED)란은 공란, 그 하단의 '선적일자'(DATE LADEN ON BOARD)란 및 '일자'(DATED, 선하증권의 발행일을 의미하는 것으로 보인다.)란에는 스템프로 '1999. 7. 1.'라는 일자가 찍혀 있었으며, 선하증권에 연속된 다른 장에는 '선적은 싱가폴에서 NORDKAP/V-381W(선박의 이름) 혹은 대체선박에 연결될 예정이다. 환적지까지 갈 선박의 이름은 NEDLLOYD EUROPA 10WM28 이다. ㅛㅛ 다카, 방글라데시'(SHIPMENT INTEND TO BE CONNECTED ON TO NORDKAP/V-381W OR SUB AT SINGAPORE. FEEDER NAME IS NEDLLOYD EUROPA 10WM28 ㅛㅛ DHAKA, BANGLADESH.)라고 기재되어 있었다.

F. Request for purchase of shipping documents

On July 1, 1999, the Defendant requested the Hanmi Bank to negotiate the letter of credit and the bill of exchange accompanied by the shipping documents of this case delivered by the Plaintiff. The Hanmi Bank paid 272,371,904 won of the purchase price of the documents related to the letter of credit and sought payment of the price by presenting each of the above shipping documents to the U.S. Bank, which is the issuing bank of the letter of credit of this case. However, on July 8, 1999, the U.S. Bank rejected payment of the price with the reasons that the bill of lading of this case stated that "the bill of lading of this case was "the shipment to the vessel or substitute vessel scheduled to be loaded at Washington" (B/L SHIP MPED HIPD DINE INE DINE INENB ATRUB ATUB ATAU 2, 1461 and 1431 of the record).

G. The defendant's subsequent measures

After becoming aware of the above rejection of payment by the issuing bank, the defendant requested the plaintiff and Austria to delete the phrase "(INTNND)" printed on the surface of the bill of this case from the defendant's employee visited Austria on August 9, 1999 to remove the phrase "(INTSND)" printed on the pre-printed on the bill of this case (INTSND)" (VESL/VGE/FLGGG). Austria cooperates with the deletion of the above phrase, but on the premise of the request for recovery of the original bill of lading, the bank did not pay the purchase price by the expiration date of the validity date of the bill of this case, and the defendant was notified on August 16, 199 of the bill of this case and the bill of this case deleted the bill of this case from the original bill of this case, and the defendant did not accept the bill of this case after receiving the bill of this case from the defendant, and the defendant deleted the bill of this case from the original bill of this case.

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff altered the bill of lading of this case delivered from Masel on July 1, 1999 into the bill of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the plaintiff, the forwarding agent, neglected to perform his duty of care, delivered and delivered the bill of this case with defective phrase "preted ship" on the bill of this case to the defendant, thereby seeking compensation for damages suffered by the defendant as above. The date of loading the bill of this case was stated on July 1, 1999, and the plaintiff was required to conduct L/C transaction using the bill of this case, and the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the plaintiff was expected to request the defendant to deliver the bill of this case to Orsel on the bill of this case, and the plaintiff was merely delivered the bill of this case to Orsel on the bill of this case, and the plaintiff did not receive the bill of this case's corrective confirmation after the delivery of the bill of this case's bill of this case to the defendant.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits applicable to the L/C of this case provides that if the L/C requires a bill of lading applicable to the port of loading, the loading of the cargo may be indicated in advance in the bill of lading. However, in the case of receipt of the bill of lading prior to the issuance of the bill of lading, the loading of the cargo shall be stated on the designated vessel and the date of loading shall be stated in the bill of lading (this is because, in the case of the received bill of lading, the loading of the cargo shall be stated on the designated vessel, and it shall not be confirmed solely by the description whether the cargo was normally shipped on the designated vessel. Thus, it is intended to clarify such facts with the bill of lading to clarify the legal relationship between the parties on the bill of lading and to determine whether the loading of the cargo was properly stated on the bill of lading and on the designated vessel's scheduled port of loading on the bill of lading (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da1620920 delivered on the bill of lading).

B. In addition, if the bill of lading provides for the vessel name and the shipping process at the time the shipment was made in accordance with the conditions of the port of loading and unloading of the goods stated in the letter of credit, it shall not be deemed that the additional information stated in the bill of lading for the convenience of the consignee, unless there are special circumstances, where it is apparent that the description is stated in the bill of lading for the convenience of the consignee, and it shall not be deemed that the description itself contravenes any other description in the bill of lading or violates the conditions of the other letter of credit.

C. Furthermore, Article 14 (d) (i) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) provides that "if an issuing bank and/or confirming bank (if any) or a designated bank acting therefor decides to refuse documents, it shall notify the issuing bank of the purport of refusal by telegraph or by other prompt means if it is impossible to use the documents without delay until the closing of the 7 banking business day from the date following the date of receipt of the documents until the 7 banking business day. Such notification shall be given to the beneficiary if the bank which delivered the documents directly receives the documents from the beneficiary." Further, Article 14 (d) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) provides that "if it gives such notice, it shall specify all defects which it refused to issue documents, and at the same time, the bank shall state whether it keeps the documents waiting to wait for the issuing bank and is returning them to the presenter." In light of the purport of the above provision, if the issuing bank presented from the negotiating bank refuses to pay the credit amount on account of defects, the issuing bank shall specify 20160.

(d) In the case of this case, the Health Bank (UCONK), the issuing bank of the credit of this case, has stated on the series of pages of the bill of lading that "the vessel scheduled to be shipped at Washington and its substitute vessel" as the defective part of the bill of lading, and "predetermineded vessel" as stated in the notice of defect in the above issuing bank, is a vessel carrying and departing from the Republic of Korea, i.e., a vessel on the surface of the bill of lading (INTND) + VESESL/VGE/FGGGGGG's bill of lading's scheduled transshipment on the bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's scheduled transshipment on the bill of lading's bill of lading's scheduled transshipment on the bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's first port of loading on the bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's scheduled transshipment on the bill of lading's bill of lading's first port's bill of lading's bill of lading'.

E. Also, since the bill of lading does not specify the shipment of the cargo in accordance with the pre-printed wording, the form is the bill of lading. However, the date indicating the date of the receipt of the cargo is the blank, and the shipper in the column indicating the date of the shipment is stated in the item method on the same day as the date of the issuance of the bill of lading (in principle, the date of the shipment of the cargo of this case is July 4, 1999, and the date of shipment should have been stated the above day in the column of the date of shipment). However, although the date indicated as the date of the issuance of the bill of this case and the date of shipment are the same date, there is a printing phrase "in the face," the name of the ship at the port of loading at the port of loading at the port of loading on the port of loading on the bill of lading, in principle, there is room to regard it as a defect in the credit-related documents stipulated in the Uniform Customs and Practice for this case, and there is no problem that the issuing bank did not notify the negotiating bank as the issuing bank's bank.

F. Therefore, the defendant's claim for damages against the plaintiff is just in refusing payment of the L/C amount to the negotiating bank, and the reasons therefor are found to be defective as asserted by the issuing bank on the bill of lading. As seen above, as long as the refusal of payment by the issuing bank of this case's L/C itself is unfair, the defendant, the beneficiary of the L/C, cannot be deemed to have any title to seek compensation against the plaintiff, who is a forwarding agent, the party who is the beneficiary of the L/C, merely the party who delivered the L/C. The court below erred in holding the defendant's claim under the premise that the refusal of payment by the issuing bank of this case is justified, but the conclusion that the plaintiff's liability is justified, and on the premise that the issuing bank refused payment due to the plaintiff's

4. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)