If a beneficiary of a credit has "Fraud", the burden of proving whether the negotiating bank has acted in good faith in seeking reimbursement of the amount to the issuing bank.

If the beneficiary of the L/C has "Fraud" against the L/C applicant, and if the L/C negotiating bank, seeking reimbursement of the purchase price, has conspiredd or had been aware of the act, the issuing bank may refuse its reimbursement in accordance with the so-called "Fraud Rule" under the Anglo-American Law. In this case, the burden of proof as to the good faith of the negotiating bank is against the issuing bank that refuses reimbursement of the purchase price.

Article 10 (1) (d) of the Uniform Regulations and Practice on Letters of Credit (amended by the fifth Amendment of 1993), Article 9 (a) (iv) of the Uniform Regulations and Practice on Letters of Credit (see Article 9 (a) (iv) of the current Uniform Regulations and Practice on Letters of Credit)

Industrial Bank of Korea and one other

Montreal Bank

1. The defendant

A. From October 16, 1992 to October 30, 1992 to 127,750 U.S. dollars 564,850 to the plaintiff Industrial Bank of Korea; from October 30, 1992 to 39,250 U.S. dollars; from December 2, 1992 to 164,850 U.S. dollars 164,850 to August 5, 193; from January 12, 1993 to August 5, 1993; from August 6, 1993 to full payment.

each interest rate of 25 percent per annum;

B. From Oct. 2, 1992 to Oct. 6, 1992 to Oct. 7, 1992 to Oct. 7, 1992 to U.S. dollars 56,260 to Busan Bank; from Oct. 5, 1992 to Aug. 5, 1993 to Aug. 6, 193 to U.S. dollars 53,650; from Oct. 7, 1992 to 116,310 to U.S. dollars 116,310 respectively; from Dec. 24, 1992 to Aug. 5, 1993 to Aug. 6, 1993 to the full payment.

Each interest rate of 25% per annum shall be paid.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

In the case of paragraph (1) of the above order (Provided, That the plaintiff Industrial Bank of Korea is seeking interest on US$ 39,750 from December 1, 1992) and where the above execution is impossible, each of the above amounts shall be paid in Korean won by converting each of the above amounts into the redemption rate for customer transfer to US$ 39,750 as of the date of compulsory execution.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged as Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2 through 11, evidence 12-1, Gap evidence 13 through 32, Gap evidence 3-1 through 8, Gap evidence 34-1 through 35-7, Gap evidence 36-1 through 8, Gap evidence 37-1 through 38, Gap evidence 39-1 through 8, Gap evidence 40-1 through 41, Gap evidence 42, Gap evidence 43-1 through 34, Gap evidence 45, Gap evidence 47-1 through 47, Gap evidence 36-1 through 8, Gap evidence 37-1 through 38, Gap evidence 39-1 through 8, Gap evidence 40-1 through 41, Gap evidence 42, Gap evidence 43-1 through 44, Gap evidence 47, Gap evidence 12-1 through 40, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 30-1 through 4, evidence 1-1-2

A. The non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 1 corporation") or non-party 4 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 1 corporation") whose name was changed to the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 1 corporation") on 17 April 1992, the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 1 corporation") or the non-party 3 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 4 corporation")'s number 30/4 of the above L/C No. 1992 (hereinafter "non-party 2 corporation"), the non-party 2 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 1 corporation"), the non-party 4 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 2 corporation"), the non-party 2 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 1 corporation"), the non-party 4 corporation (hereinafter "non-party 4 corporation"), the non-party 1 corporation's number 30/4 of the above L/C, the non-party 1 corporation's number 30/146/14 of the above L/192.

B. The above L/C contains a statement in which each beneficiary presents shipping documents, such as bills of exchange or bills of lading, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the L/C, which are 90 days (1 to 4) or 120 days (5 to 6 L/C) after sight issued by each beneficiary as the payer to the Defendant bank. In the event of negotiation, the Defendant bank undertakes to pay to the negotiating bank at maturity upon receipt of the documents consistent with the terms and conditions of the L/C. The above L/C transaction contains a statement in which the negotiating bank promises to pay to the negotiating bank at maturity. The above L/C transaction contains the Uniform Customs and Practice (1. C. U-U-form C. U-USoms and Pactactuss, 400, 1983, hereinafter the Uniform Regulation) amended and promulgated by the International Chamber.

C. After that, according to the direction of the defendant bank, the non-party Korea Exchange Bank notified the above non-party company or non-party 2 company of the issuance of each of the above credit.

D. The plaintiff Busan Bank (hereinafter "the plaintiff bank") shall be the Busan Bank.

(1) On June 25, 1992, the above non-party 2 purchased the bill of exchange and shipping documents at KRW 75,815,742 after deducting the commission from the amount of USD 97,600 at the face value of the bill of exchange issued by the above non-party 2 pursuant to the above third credit, USD 97,60 at maturity, 90 days after maturity, and the bill of exchange drawn to the defendant bank and the shipping documents stated in the above letter of credit, and the above non-party 2 purchased the bill of exchange at the face value of USD 97,600 at the face value of the bill of exchange(7,889,080 at the face value). On July 16 of the same year, the defendant bank accepted the bill of exchange and shipping documents at the maturity of October 1 of the same year.

(2) On June 30, 1992, the above non-party 1 purchased the bill of exchange and shipping documents issued by the above non-party 1 pursuant to the letter of credit No. 1 at the par value of 53,650 U.S. dollars, 90 days after maturity, and 53,650 U.S. dollars in the bill of exchange and the documents stated in the above letter of credit to the above non-party 1 company after deducting fees from the above amount of 53,650 US dollars in face value of the bill of exchange and the above bill of exchange, and the defendant bank accepted the above bill of exchange and shipping documents on July 6 of the same year at the maturity of 10.5 of the same year;

(3) On the same day, the above non-party 1 purchased the bill of exchange and shipping documents issued by the non-party 1 company in accordance with the second letter of credit at the par value US$298,750, 90, 190, 298,70, 298,614, which was calculated by deducting commission, etc. from the face value of the bill of exchange and the bill of exchange and the shipping documents stated in the above letter of credit, to the non-party 1 company. In response to the delivery of the above bill of exchange and shipping documents to the defendant bank, the defendant bank confirmed and accepted the above bill of exchange on July 9 of the same year with the maturity of October 6 of the same year;

(4) On August 20, 1992, the above non-party 2 purchased the bill of exchange and shipping documents at KRW 89,714,791 after deducting the commission from the amount of USD 116,310 at the face value of the bill of exchange issued by the above non-party 2 pursuant to the letter of credit No. 5, USD 116,310 at maturity, KRW 120 days after maturity, and KRW 116,310 at the face value of the bill of exchange and the bill of exchange drawn up by the defendant bank, and the above bill of exchange and shipping documents were sent to the defendant bank on September 16 of the same year, the defendant bank confirmed the maturity on December 23 of the same year.

E. The plaintiff Industrial Bank of Korea

(1) On July 14, 1992, the above non-party 2 purchased the bill of exchange and shipping documents issued by the above non-party 2 pursuant to the letter of credit No. 4 at the par value US$ 233,00, 90 days after maturity, and 179,808,102 after deducting fees from the above non-party 2's face value of the bill of exchange and the shipping documents stated in the bill of exchange and the above letter of credit, and the above non-party 2 purchased them to the above non-party 2 at the above non-party 2 company at the face value of the bill of exchange No. 23,00,000, and upon delivery of the above bill of exchange and shipping documents to the defendant bank, the defendant bank confirmed the maturity on July 14 of the same year as of October 15 of the same year.

(2) On July 24, 1992, the above non-party 2 purchased the bill of exchange and shipping documents issued by the above non-party 2 pursuant to the letter of credit 4 at KRW 127,750, 90, 127,750, 127,750, and 20,000, 20,000, from among the above non-party 2's face value of the bill of exchange and the bill of exchange and the shipping documents stated in the above letter of credit (one hundred and seventy thousand,168,775, 100) to the above non-party 2, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the bank credit transaction in the bank bank in the bank of the Bank of Korea governing the above loan, at KRW 77,718,252, after deducting other fees, the defendant bank accepted the above bill of exchange and shipping documents on October 29, 200.

(3) On August 28, 1992, the above non-party 2 purchased the bill of exchange and shipping documents issued by the above non-party 2 pursuant to the letter of credit No. 4 at KRW 39,250,000, the due date 90,000,000 which was 39,250,000,000, which was borrowed from the above export financing from the above non-party 2's above export financing among the above amount of USD 39,250,000,000,000 which was 7,168,09,090, which was deducted from the fees, and the defendant bank accepted the above bill of exchange and shipping documents on August 28, 200, which became final and conclusive on October 29, 29 of the same year.

(4) On September 5, 1992, the above non-party 2 purchased the bill of exchange and the shipping documents stated in the above letter of credit issued by the non-party 2 company pursuant to the letter of credit No. 6, 164,850, 120 days after maturity, and 164,850, at the face value of the bill of exchange issued by the defendant bank, and purchased the bill of exchange and the shipping documents stated in the above letter of credit to the above non-party 2 company, and collected 50,00,000,000, which were borrowed from the export financing as above, and paid 77,40,90,907, which was deducted from the commission, and the defendant bank accepted the above bill of exchange and shipping documents on September 16, 1993.

2. Determination on the claim for the L/C purchase price

(a) Applicable law;

As the cause of the claim in this case, the Plaintiff bank is seeking reimbursement of each purchase price against the Defendant bank, which is the issuing bank of the above L/C, as the negotiating bank of each bill of exchange and shipping documents based on the above L/C. Thus, in light of the fact that the above L/C was established in a foreign country by the Defendant bank, the foreign corporation, the Plaintiff bank, first of all, the governing law applicable to the claim in this case, other than the language and text of the L/C that the Uniform Regulations apply to the L/C transaction in this case. Since there was no agreement on governing law between the Defendant bank, there was no agreement on governing law between the Defendant bank, the law of Canada of the country in which the issuing bank introduced by the issuing bank shall be the governing law, i.e., the place where the issuing bank expressed its intent of undertaking in accordance with Article 11 (1) of the Conflict of Laws Act, and the law of Canada shall be the governing law in the country in which the issuing bank introduced by the above L/C.

B. Determination on the claims by the Plaintiff Bank

According to the above facts, the defendant bank, as the issuing bank of each of the above letters of credit, is obligated to repay the purchase price of each letter of credit equivalent to the face value of each letter of credit in accordance with the text of the letter of credit and the relevant provisions of Articles 10(1)(d), 11(4), and 16 of the Uniform Regulations, which have promised payment to the negotiating bank, as the negotiating bank of bills of exchange and shipping documents under the above letter of credit.

C. Determination on the defenses of Defendant Bank

(1) On September 15, 1992, the Defendant bank issued a temporary injunction against payment on the instant Nos. 1 through 4 credit of this case, and issued a temporary injunction against payment to the remaining credit of this case on December 21 of the same year, and the Defendant bank continued to comply with the Plaintiff bank's claims until the main hearing and other disposition on June 25, 1993. Thus, the Defendant bank defense that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff bank's claims. However, the above temporary injunction order under Canada law is a provisional procedural order to maintain the temporary phenomenon prior to the final judgment, and it cannot refuse the Plaintiff bank's claims on the ground of this case's lawsuit, and therefore, it is not reasonable to further examine it.

(2) In addition, in order for the Plaintiff bank, which is the negotiating bank of the instant L/C, to make a claim for reimbursement to the issuing bank, the Plaintiff bank must be a bona fide holder as stipulated in Article 10(1)(d) of the Uniform Regulations. Here, the Plaintiff bank refers to a bona fide holder of the L/C. In this case, the governing law which determines whether the Plaintiff bank is a bona fide holder of the L/C shall be the Canadian law, which is the governing law for the consignee’s liability. Under the Canadian law, the bill holder shall be presumed to be a bona fide holder, but if it is proved that the issuance, sale, or acceptance of the bill was affected by fraud, etc., the presumption shall be reversed and the holder of the bill shall be proved to be a bona fide holder. Thus, the Plaintiff bank cannot claim reimbursement of the L/C purchase price to the Defendant bank unless it proves that the Plaintiff bank itself is a bona fide holder.

Therefore, as to whether Article 10 (1) (d) of the Uniform Rule stipulates that a negotiating bank shall be a bona fide holder in filing a claim for reimbursement with the issuing bank, this provision provides that the issuing bank shall not exercise its right of recourse against the issuer or bona fide holder in the event that the issuing bank is scheduled to negotiate the letter of credit. This provision provides that the issuing bank shall not exercise its right of recourse against the issuer or bona fide holder (-wire-wirehyers and/or bon bon bon hon hon-). It does not provide that the requirement for filing a claim against the issuing bank should be a bona fide holder, and therefore, the above defense of the Defendant bank under the premise that the negotiating bank must be a bona fide holder in filing a claim for reimbursement with the issuing bank under the above provision is groundless.

However, as stipulated in Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Shipping Rules, the above L/C transaction was executed by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's issuing bank's debt is absolute and not affected by the sales contract or the financial transaction. However, the so-called fraudulent rule was formed through judicial precedents and legislation to prevent the non-party 1 from being liable for payment to the issuing bank. The defendant bank's defenses against the non-party 2 were purchased by the non-party 9 bank's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 9 bank's non-party company's non-party 1 and the non-party 9 bank's non-party 1's non-party company's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party company's non-party 9's non-party company's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 34-7 and Gap's non-party 1's non-party 38's evidence.

3. Determination on the subject claim

The plaintiff bank sought payment of the U.S. currency to the defendant bank as the purchase price of the credit and sought payment of the U.S. currency in the event compulsory execution is not possible, but the foreign currency payment claim also can be enforced by compulsory execution under the Civil Procedure Act, because the judgment ordering payment of the foreign currency as a kind of monetary claim can be enforced by compulsory execution against the monetary claim under the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the plaintiff bank's claim is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Then, as the issuing bank of the above credit, the defendant bank is obligated to pay 9.1 U.S. dollars 564,850 (23,00 + 39,850 + 250 + 23,00 U.S. dollars 9.16% interest rate of 9.6 U.S. dollars 9.6% interest rate of 9.6 U.S. dollars 9.6% interest rate of each of the above 9.6 U.S. dollars 16.6% interest rate of 9.6% on each of the above 9.6 U.S. dollars 16.6% interest rate of 9.6% on each of the above 9.6 U.S. dollars 16.4% interest rate of 9.6% on each of the above 9.6% interest rate of 9.6% interest rate of 9% on each of the above 9.6% interest rate of 9.6% interest rate of 9% on each of the above 9.6.6.1% interest rate on each of the bill

The number of judges' second and second judges' succession (Presiding Judge)