[1] In a case where a credit calls for the original insurance document as a required document and designates the number of originals specifically required or does not specify whether the insured or the endorsement of the insurance document is made, whether the beneficiary presents a blank endorsement while presenting the insurance document as the insured (affirmative)

[2] The base point of time for examining whether the credit-related documents and conditions presented by the L/C issuing bank are consistent with the L/C issuing bank, and whether the issuing bank may refuse the beneficiary's claim for the payment of the L/C where the beneficiary presents all necessary documents in compliance with the conditions of the L/C within a legitimate period

[1] In accordance with Article 13(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, a bank which examines a letter of credit and its related documents is obligated to examine whether all the documents agreed on the letter of credit comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit on its face with due care. Whether the terms and conditions of the letter of credit agreement conforms to the terms and conditions of the letter of credit on its face shall be determined by international standard bank transaction customs as reflected in the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits. The international commercial conference's international standard banking practice [International standard Bank practice, as authorized by the Commission for Documentary Credits] decided under its affiliated bank's approval [where the holder of the letter of credit asks for Documentary Credits, ICC, ICC, 645(203)] does not require the beneficiary's right to submit the documents in the letter of credit to the insured in the form of an insurance policy, unless it is required for the beneficiary's right to receive the documents in the form of an insurance policy or the beneficiary's right to receive the documents in the letter of credit.

[2] Article 42 (a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that "any credit must be presented for payment, acceptance, or for presentation of documents except in the case of a general L/C. The term of validity specified for payment, acceptance, or negotiation shall be deemed to mean the term of validity for presentation of documents." Article 43 (a) of the above Rule provides that "In addition to the provisions on the term of validity for presentation of documents, all the L/C requiring presentation of documents must specify a specific period for presentation of documents which start from the date of shipment. Unless this period of time is specified, banks shall not accept the documents presented to banks after 21 days from the date of shipment: Provided, That in any case, banks shall not present documents within the term of validity of the L/C; each provision on the term of validity for presentation of the L/C and the date for presentation of documents, which conforms to the terms and conditions of the L/C's letter of credit and the date for presentation of all the documents presented to the L/C's issuing bank for presentation of the documents within the designated period.

[1] Article 13(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 5th Amendment) / [2] Article 42(a) and Article 43(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (193 5th Amendment)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Da63691 decided Jun. 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1784) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da56178 decided Mar. 14, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 977) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da58283 decided May 13, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1278) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da60296 decided Oct. 11, 202 (Gong2002Ha, 2663)

C. C.C. system (Attorney Lee Jung-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

China Construction Bank (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Kim Jong-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na34961 delivered on June 22, 2001

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Summary of the judgment of the court below

A. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the records, the Plaintiff sent 9 U.S.C. 1 to the 19th KFF 1, which was not sent to the Plaintiff on the 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st th th th th th th th 1st th th th th 1st th th th th 1st th th th 9th th th th th th th 9th th th th th th th th th th th 9th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th 9th th th th th th th th 1st th th th th th th th th th 1st th th th th th th th th th 1st th th th th th th th th th th th th th 2.

B. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that, in the L/C transaction, the shipping documents must have the appearance of normal payment in terms of social norms, and in the event that the exporter entered into the L/C with the trade trade as a collateral for the bills of exchange issued by the exporter, if the exporter becomes the insured as the policyholder, it should make a blank endorsement or a registered endorsement so that the bank can exercise its rights in the insurance. The defendant's refusal of payment on the L/C is justified since there is no blank endorsement on the L/C of this case. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff can be seen as a legitimate payment presentation within the period stipulated in the L/C, as long as the beneficiary's refusal of payment against the L/C against the issuing bank was justified, it cannot be asserted against the issuing bank even if the beneficiary presented a lawful payment presentation to the negotiating bank.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. A bank which examines a credit and its related documents pursuant to Article 13 (a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits is obligated to examine whether all the documents agreed on the credit comply with the terms and conditions of the credit strictly. Whether the credit agreement documents comply with the terms and conditions of the credit shall be determined by international standard bank transaction practices reflected in the UCP (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da63691 Decided June 28, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2002Da56178 Decided March 14, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2001Da58283 Decided May 13, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da53283 Decided February 28, 2003). It is reasonable for the ICC to indicate the right of the beneficiary to the standard insurance contract terms and conditions as stipulated in the UCP's international standard insurance contract terms and conditions.

From this point of view, the court below is just to determine that the insurance policy of this case satisfies the conditions of the letter of credit with the beneficiary who is the insured at the time of presentation of documents, i.e., the Plaintiff’s blank endorsement at the time of presentation of documents, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the examination of documents of credit as

(b) Article 42(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that "any credit must present the documents for payment, acceptance, or for presentation of documents except in the case of a general negotiating letter of credit." The term of validity specified for payment, acceptance or negotiation shall be deemed to mean the term of validity for presentation of documents, and Article 43(a) of the above Rule provides that "any credit which requires presentation of documents, in addition to the provisions on the term of validity for presentation of documents, shall specify a specific period for presentation of documents which start after the date of shipment. If this period is not specified, banks shall not accept the documents presented to the bank after the lapse of 21 days from the date of shipment: Provided, That in any case, documents shall be presented within the term of validity for presentation of the letter of credit and the period for presentation of documents related to the shipping shall be 10 days from the date of presentation of the letter of credit and shall be 20 days from the date of presentation of the documents within the date of presentation of the letter of credit and shall be 10 days from the date of presentation of the letter of credit and 20 days from the bank.

According to the records, the credit of this case is an acceptance letter of credit which is premised on acceptance by the issuing bank of the bill of exchange, and the maturity and document market office of the credit of this case was stated on September 15, 1998 "the Republic of Korea (31D: August 26, 198; 209.)", but was extended on September 15, 1998 (the evidence No. 6, recorded 70 pages). The presentation period of the shipping documents is within 3 days from the date of issuance of the transport documents (48: 34 days in Extraordinary: 30 days in Extraordinary, 1998, 198, 198, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 3, 3, 19, 3, 19, 3, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 13, 16, 3, 19,

As such, the L/C requires an insurance policy with necessary documents, but did not specifically require multiple originals. If the originals of the documents are two copies, the beneficiary shall present all the originals issued under Article 34(b) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits. If the insured of the above insurance policy are the beneficiary, the beneficiary shall, in accordance with the above international standard banking practice, make a blank endorsement for the exercise of the rights of the holder of the documents, and then present it. In this case, the Plaintiff, the beneficiary, submitted one copy of the insurance policy with blank endorsement and one copy of the remaining documents without endorsement. The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, as the beneficiary, submitted one copy of the document to the NA, the issuing bank, and the NA, the issuing bank, after the first shipping of the shipping documents, submitted one copy of the original documents without blank endorsement, which was omitted in blank on the insurance policy sent by the Defendant bank, and the Defendant, the issuing bank, who sent one copy of the insurance policy with blank endorsement within the due time limit, shall not be obliged to pay the letter of credit to the beneficiary.

The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the beneficiary's refusal of payment was legitimate, even if the beneficiary did not assert it to the issuing bank, is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reference point for the presentation period and place of the shipping documents of the letter of credit and the application of the strict principle. The plaintiff's appeal on this part is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)