[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] The standard for determining whether the consignment and the port of shipment under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits for Documentary Credits for the fifth amendment are different

[3] The case holding that, in the indication of a bill of lading, the loading port and the name of a ship should not be indicated separately from the loading port on the bill of lading in accordance with the "international standard banking practice determined by the International Commercial Conference Banking Commission, which deems the same place as the place in the column of loading port on the bill of lading" if the place is the same as the place stated in the column of loading port on the bill of lading

[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 may be indicated in accordance with the pre-printed language and text of 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 was 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, the loading on board, On-board No. 1). This purpose is to clarify whether the cargo was normally loaded on the designated ship and clarify the legal relationship of the parties following the shipment on the bill of lading. Thus, whether the loading on-board vessel required by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits is legitimate or not must be determined strictly on the basis of the relevant bill of lading without referring to the description of other documents related to the letter and text of the relevant bill of lading.

[2] Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) provides that, if a bill of lading specifies the place of receipt or acceptance different from the port of loading, the loading notation shall include the name of the ship on which the bill of lading was loaded, even though the goods are loaded on the designated ship on the bill of lading. Whether a bank has any other indication on the consignment and the port of loading on the bill of lading, which is a required document for the letter of credit, is obligated to investigate and check whether the bank strictly complies with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit in its form. However, such strict compliance does not mean that the wording should be completely identical. Even if there is a little difference, if the bank uses a considerable difference in the meaning of the text, and if it can be found on the face of the language that the bank does not cause any difference in the meaning of the letter of credit, or that it does not harm all the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, it shall be deemed that it conforms with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit.

[3] The case holding that the "International Commercial Conference" is an international standard banking practice related to the on-board loading machine on a bill of lading, and it is clearly stated in the bill of lading "International Standard Banking Practice (SBP), which is decided with the approval of the ICC Commission (ICC) under its control, and that such an act does not constitute a "standard banking practice related to the on-board loading machine" as stated in the bill of lading, and that the ICC 645 (203) is not required to be separately stated in the bill of lading at the place of loading on the bill of lading when the place of loading on the bill of lading was stated in the bill of lading, and that such act does not constitute a "on-board shipping bill" as stated in the "on-board shipping bill of lading" at the place of loading on the bill of lading or at the place of loading on the bill of lading, and that such act does not constitute a "on-board shipping bill of lading."

[1] Article 23 (a) ii of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 5th Revision), Article 814-2 of the Commercial Code / [2] Articles 13 (a) and 23 (a) ii of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (193 5th Revision), Article 814-2 of the Commercial Code / [3] Article 23 (a) ii of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (193 5th Revision)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29469 decided Oct. 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2677), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da83715, 83722 decided Nov. 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 201) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 84Da696 decided May 28, 1985 (No33-2, 222), Supreme Court Decision 84Da697 decided May 28, 1985 (No32, 32, 331) (Gong200Da63691 decided Jun. 28, 2002)

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Korea Asset Management Corporation (Attorney Kim Jae-sub, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Oversea- Chinese Bankling Cpo Corporation (Law Firm Kim & Newdrid, Attorneys Ba-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na6553 delivered on July 6, 2001

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the evidence and records duly adopted by the court below, the defendant bank's business offices were transferred to the defendant bank 9. The defendant bank's 9. The defendant bank's 7th of February 1997 letter of credit and the defendant bank's 9. The defendant bank's 7th of February 197's 197 letter of credit was requested to the defendant bank's 9. The defendant bank's 17th of the new letter of credit's 9. The defendant bank's 9th of February 197's 9. The defendant bank's 7th of June 197's 9th of June 200's 7th of the new letter of credit and the new letter of credit's 9th of credit's 9th of the 9th of the new letter of credit's 96th of credit and the new letter of credit's 97th of credit's 2nd of the 96th of the 1st of the new letter of credit's 17th of credit.

2. Based on the above facts, the court below held that the defendant, the issuing bank of the letter of credit of this case, is obligated to pay the amount of the letter of credit to the succeeding participant who received the claim of this case from the plaintiff, the negotiating bank, if the required documents comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit and are presented within the time limit for presentation of documents. As alleged by the defendant, as to whether the refusal to pay the amount of the letter of credit is legitimate or not due to defects in the documents related to the letter of credit, the place of receiving the cargo (PALEOE CYIT) on the face of each bill of lading (5 Evidence No. 7 and No. 10) which is the necessary documents of the letter of credit of this case, was the Busan container bill of this case (BUSN C), the port of loading (POFOFODDING) and the port of loading (POT) stated each of the above documents as Busan bill of lading bill of lading bill of this case, and therefore, it is not reasonable that the plaintiff's purchase of the bill of this case was close to Busan bill of lading.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, which applies to the L/C transaction of this case, provides that if the L/C requires a bill of lading that is applicable to the port section shipment, the fact of shipment of the cargo may be indicated in accordance with the previously 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 that is not 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 vessel and the date of loading should be clearly stated (in the case of a received bill of lading, this purpose is to clarify whether the cargo has been normally loaded on the designated vessel on the bill of lading, and to clarify the legal relationship of the parties following the loading of the cargo, the issue of whether the loading on board vessel required by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits has been legitimate shall be determined on the basis of the wording of the relevant bill of lading without referring to the description of other documents related to the letter of credit, 201.

In addition, Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that, where a bill of lading specifies the place of receipt or consignment different from the port of loading, loading on board shall include the name of the ship loaded on the bill of lading even if the bill of lading is loaded on the designated vessel. Whether there is any other indication on the bill of lading as required documents of the credit, or whether there is any other indication on the bill of lading shall be done with due care to strictly comply with the terms and conditions of the credit in its form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu696, 697, May 28, 1985). However, such strict compliance does not mean that if the bill of lading is loaded on the bill of lading, it does not mean that it is completely consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit, and even if there is a little difference, it shall be deemed that the bank does not have a significant difference in the meaning of the terms and conditions, or if it does not harm the terms and conditions of the credit.

However, "International Standard Bank Practice" decided with the approval of the ICC Commission (ICC) under its control is an international standard banking practice relating to the on board loading vessel on a bill of lading. The 645(203) is an international standard banking practice related to the on board vessel on a bill of lading, and the ICC order of the court below stated the name of the vessel on the bill of lading as the port of loading at the port of loading and the port of loading on the bill of lading, and the place of loading on the bill of lading is not required separately from the place of loading on the bill of lading, so such other place of loading on the bill of lading as the place of loading on the port of loading on the bill of lading is not required. Therefore, if the court below stated that the above place of loading on the bill of lading and the place of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on the port of loading on long place.

Therefore, the court below, which held that the defendant's refusal to pay the credit of this case was justified on other occasions, shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that misleads the meaning of Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits 5. The plaintiff's appeal

4. Therefore, the lower judgment 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)