The case holding that a trade broker does not prepare and deliver to the exporting company a quasi-guaranteed letter prepared by the trade broker to guarantee the payment of the export price.

The case holding that when the principal bank of the exporting company purchased the bill of exchange, etc. and then the issuing bank of the letter of credit refused to pay the purchase price of the letter of credit from the issuing bank and the exporting company was faced with the situation under which the principal bank would recover the purchase price of the letter of credit, the representative director of the exporting company would prepare the letter of guarantee to the trade broker and submit it to the principal bank and return the shipping documents, etc. at the principal bank, and the principal bank requested that the trade broker would not hold liability against the trade broker, and that the letter of guarantee prepared by the principal bank to the exporting company and issued it with the intent of guaranteeing

Articles 105, 428(1) of the Civil Act, Article 16 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 4548, Nov. 13, 1990)

Jan Trade Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Osung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na18254 delivered on June 29, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined. The supplemental appellate brief is not timely filed, so it is examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief.

1. In light of the records, the court below's finding of facts is acceptable. The court below's finding that the defendant, which is only a trade broker in the export transaction of this case, did not prepare and deliver the letter of guarantee to the plaintiff of this case as an intent to guarantee the payment of the price of the goods of this case to the plaintiff of the exporter, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of the international trade in purchasing defects.

2. The issue is on the premise that the bank purchased the above shipping documents and the bill of exchange, etc. on the ground that there is no defect in the documentary credit transaction, and that the sale and purchase relation of the bill of exchange and trade transaction are terminated. The plaintiff, as the exporter bank, purchased the bill of exchange, etc. on the L/C transaction of this case, and refused payment of the L/C amount on the ground that the above shipping documents do not coincide with the contents of the L/C, the issuing bank, the negotiating bank, would not have the position to recover the purchase price of the above bill of exchange from the issuing bank, but the defendant, as the trade broker, suspended the transaction between the importing bank and the M/C bank, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant, as the issuing bank, requested the issuing bank to refund the above shipping documents to the above bank, and that the defendant would not have any error in the law of delivery of the letter of credit amount from the issuing bank to the issuing bank. However, in light of the records presented by the court below, the plaintiff bank, as the issuing bank of this case, presented the above shipping documents to the issuing bank's bill of this case.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)