[1] Whether Article 23 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits 5th Amendment relating to Maritime Bills of Lading applies to the examination of documents by the issuing bank of the letter of credit where a bill of lading, which requires a required document, was presented using other names such as a multimodal transport bill of lading (affirmative)

[2] 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

[3] The standard for determining whether the conditions of a credit and the description of a marine bill of lading coincide with the port of loading and unloading

[1] If the fifth amendment of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits requires a bill of lading applicable to shipping between ports and ports (hereinafter referred to as "marine bill of lading"), banks shall meet the requirements under Article 23 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, and at least two different shipping methods in the credit, request a transport document (hereinafter referred to as "multimodal transport document") under at least two different shipping methods (hereinafter referred to as "multimodal transport report") to meet the requirements under the letter of credit, as stated in Article 26 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits and Practice for Documentary Credits and Practice for Documentary Credits, unless otherwise stipulated in the letter of credit, banks shall accept the documents, regardless of their names, which meet the requirements under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, so long as such documents meet all the requirements under the letter of credit documents required under the letter of credit documents, banks shall not request the delivery of the documents, such as the letter of credit documents, and shall not request the delivery of the documents under the letter of credit documents, and thus, determine whether they meet the requirements under the letter of credit documents submitted.

[2] Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) provides that when the L/C requires a bill of lading that is applicable to a port section 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 receipt bill of lading that is not 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 should be clearly stated (in the case of a receipt bill of lading, the loading on board). This cannot be confirmed solely with the statement whether the cargo was 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 on board vessel required by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits is legitimate should be determined strictly based on the relevant bill of lading without referring to other documents related to the letter of credit.

[3] Article 23(a)3 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) provides that, if a credit requires a port-to-port marine bill of lading as a transport document, the port of discharge on the bill of lading shall coincide with the description on the bill of lading (if a port-to-port bill of lading demands a port-to-port bill of lading, "to-port port of discharge" shall be deemed as the same as the port of discharge) and that, as long as the entry in a port of discharge coincides with that in the bill of lading, it shall be prohibited from expressing the final destination differently. This purport is that the process and method of transport as required in the letter of credit must be confirmed in all in the bill of lading for which the bill of lading was presented. Thus, the issue of whether the loading and unloading of

[1] Articles 23 and 26 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (193 5th Amendment) / [2] Article 23 (a) ii of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 5th Amendment) / [3] Article 23 (a) 3 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (193 5th Amendment)

F.C. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Ansan-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

China Bank (Attorney Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na59083 delivered on April 3, 2001

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Review of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

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

On December 27, 1997, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with a HUGGGG company located in the Han River (HUGGGG) for exporting Aluminium 29.3950 MT per day to US$ 113,170.74. On December 27, 1997, the Defendant bank injured the Defendant bank by notifying the Plaintiff of the letter of credit and receiving it on the letter of credit at the request of the 'injury-Packing, packing, export and import food company (SHGHPA PACF PAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPY) on behalf of the subsequent instructor in connection with this export.

B. Contents of the Credit

(1) The letter of credit of this case requires one-third of the necessary documents in 46A, one-third of which is one of the necessary documents, and thus, allow the transshipment of the goods (43T: transportation ship ALOWD). The port of registry (on 44A: SOUTH KH MAA MIN PTRT), purpose port (for example, transportation ship to 44B: DONG AI, CHA) in China.

(2) The UCP amended 5th Amendment of the International Commercial Conference provides that the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UNFCCCFOM CUUSTOTR PCR PETR DoUCUENTRS, 193 REVION and ICCPBS shall apply. 500 Effives provide that the Uniform Regulations for Documentary Credits shall apply.

C. Statement of the bill of lading presented by the Plaintiff along with the credit

After shipping the exported goods of this case, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant documents such as bills of exchange, commercial invoice, bill of lading, insurance policy, packing statement, quality certificate, copy of the shipment notice, beneficiary certificate, etc. The Plaintiff presented a bill of lading in lieu of the marine bill of lading required in the letter of credit. In the securities, the port of loading is Korea Busan (BUSN, KORE), port of discharge, port of discharge is Hong Kong (HONG KONG), port of delivery is China East Sea (DON), final destination (CHA), China East Sea (DON) and the date on which each port of loading was indicated as DONAI, CHA, CHA, and 30 days on which each port of loading was signed without any other indication on the right.

D. Refusal of payment on the letter of credit by Defendant Bank

The Defendant bank rejected the payment of the letter of credit on the ground that (1) the Plaintiff’s claim for the letter of credit was omitted on the date of March 20, 1998 from the instant bill of lading presented by the Plaintiff on the ground that (2) the port of discharge stated the port of arrival in the bill of lading as “HONG AI and CHING” instead of the port of arrival of the letter of credit.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. Of the Defendant’s grounds for refusing to pay the letter of credit, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation that the loading on board was omitted on the instant bill of lading, as follows, on the grounds that the cargo was loaded on a designated vessel, and that the loading on board was omitted.

(1) According to Article 23(a)(ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, the letter of credit of this case 46A provides that "in the event that a letter of credit requires a bill of lading that is applicable to port shipment, "the goods have been loaded on board or shipped on a designated vessel as the requirements for the certificate of acceptance." Since the bill of this case does not contain any on-board notation as required by the letter of credit of this case and the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, the bill of this case seems to be a document that does not comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit of this case.

(2) However, considering that the bill of lading of this case is not a simple ocean bill of lading, but a combined ocean bill of lading of this case, if the defendant does not consider it as a ground for refusing payment, it shall be deemed that the combined ocean bill of lading of this case meets the conditions of the letter of credit of this case. According to Article 26 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, if a letter of credit calls for a transport document by a combined transport, it shall be stated that "the goods have been sent, taken in charge, or loaded on board, as the requirements corresponding to the on-board notation under Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Rules." Thus, if the bill of this case contains any provision of Article 26 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, it shall be deemed that the bill of this case satisfies the conditions of the bill of this case.

(3) Unless otherwise specified in the top of the bill of lading of this case, the phrase "Iree" was printed to the effect that the consignee received from the consignor without any defect, and on March 20, 1998, a captain's summary signature is affixed to the bill of this case on the date when the letter of lading of this case was issued on the date when the letter of lading of this case was issued on March 20, 1998 without any other statement. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the bill of this case includes the terms of trust stipulated in Article 26(a)(ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits.

B. Furthermore, with regard to the fact that the defendant's grounds for refusing to pay the letter of credit of this case include a port of arrival different from that of the letter of credit of this case, the court below rejected the bill of this case's final bill of lading's port of arrival and final destination as port of loading (SOUTH REA) in South Korea. The bill of this case's port of loading and port of loading and port of destination is China East Sea (DONH AI, CHA), and the bill of this case's port of loading and port of loading and port of discharge are also stated in the bill of this case's final port of destination as port of loading and port of destination, but the bill of this case's bill of lading's final port of arrival and port of destination are also stated in the bill of this case'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 bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's bill of lading's port of destination and port of destination.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. Article 23 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that if a bill of lading applicable to the shipment between ports is requested by the credit, banks shall meet the requirements under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (hereinafter referred to as the "UCP"), and at least two different shipping methods in the credit, request a transport document (hereinafter referred to as "combined transport document") under the same different conditions and conditions under the credit to meet the requirements under the credit, unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, banks shall accept such a request unless the transport document satisfies all the requirements under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits and Practice for Documentary Credits, regardless of the name of the transport document in question, and thus, banks shall not request the delivery of the documents under the letter of credit and the letter of credit documents under the name of the beneficiary of the documents submitted under the letter of credit, and shall not request the delivery of the documents under the letter of credit and the letter of credit documents under the name of the beneficiary of the documents, regardless of the name of the documents submitted under the letter of credit.

B. The lower court determined that Article 26 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Transport Documents should apply to the instant bill of lading as a combined shipping bill of lading premised on the transshipment of the goods, and on the premise that Article 26 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Transport Documents should apply to such securities.

However, the title of the bill of lading of this case is not a "combined Transport Bill of Lading" but a "combined Transport Bill of Lading," which appears to be a form of multimodal transport document premised on two or more means of transport in light of the form of the security. In this case, it is clear that the transport document explicitly required by the letter of credit is a multimodal transport bill of lading used for the ocean-going Transport. Furthermore, it is clear that the bill of lading of this case is not a premise of two or more different means of transport, i.e., the transport by multimodal transport, and the statement of the letter of credit and the related documents, so the issuing bank of the letter of credit must determine whether the bill of this case presented by the plaintiff as the documents related to the letter of credit satisfies all the requirements for acceptance provided by Article 23 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for the Sea Transport of this case, regardless of its name.

In the end, the judgment of the court below that Article 26 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Transport shall apply to multimodal transport documents (Article 26 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Transport Does not contained in the title of the bill of lading), on the ground that the phrase "multimodal transport" was contained in the title of the bill of lading of this case (the expression "sea" presented by the court below is not contained in the title of the bill of this case). It erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for the acceptance of transport documents, such as maritime bill of lading, under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Transport Does,

The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

C. We examine whether the bill of lading of this case has an on board No. 1, which is a legitimate acceptance requirement of the marine bill of lading required by the letter of credit.

Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs Rule provides that if the L/C requires a bill of lading that is applicable to the port shipment, the fact of shipment of the cargo 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 that is not 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). This cannot be confirmed solely by the description of whether the cargo was normally loaded on the designated ship. Thus, in order to clarify the legal relationship of the parties arising from the loading on the bill of lading, the issue of whether the loading on board vessel required by the Uniform Customs is legitimate should 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.

In the case of this case, since the bill of lading of this case does not indicate the shipment of the cargo by pre-printed wording, it is necessary to affix an on-board notation as to the fact that the cargo was loaded on a designated ship in accordance with Article 23 (a) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits. The plaintiff's assertion that the on-board notation is a beneficiary is an on-board notation, and as seen above, the date of " March 20, 1998" is stamped by stamp method, and all under whose name the bill of lading was signed by all.

Therefore, even if the signature was made by the master as alleged by the plaintiff (the bank that examines the documents related to the letter of credit does not have a way to confirm the person signing it, and unlike the UCP 4th amendment, the UCP 5th amendment applicable to the letter of credit of this case does not require the signature of the carrier or its agent on the on board notation of the marine bill of lading, or the signature of the summary or regular form with respect to the on board notation of the marine bill of lading). Such a description alone cannot be viewed as a fact that the cargo was loaded on the on board, so this does not meet the requirements of the on board notation as required by Article 23 (a) (ii) of the UCP 2 of the UCP. Accordingly, the bill of lading of this case must be viewed as a transport document that does not comply with

On the other hand, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits concerning the on board bill of lading, or by misapprehending the legal principles of the on board bill of lading.

The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

D. Furthermore, we examine whether the entry of the port of discharge on the bill of lading of this case is consistent with the conditions of the letter of credit.

Article 23(a)(iii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that, if a credit requires a marine bill of lading used for port-to-port transport as a transport document, the port of discharge as stated in the bill of lading must coincide with the description of the credit (if a credit demands a port-to-port bill of lading, the term "to-port port of discharge" shall be deemed the same as the port of discharge) and that, as long as the entry in a port of discharge coincides with that in the bill of lading, the bill of lading must not indicate the final destination differently. This purport is that the process and method of transport required in the letter of credit must be confirmed in both the bill of lading and the bill of lading presented. Thus, the issue of whether the loading and unloading of the relevant cargo were entered in

In the case of the bill of lading of this case, the port of discharge includes Hong Kong (HONG) which is not the port of credit (DONG AI, CHINA), not the port of discharge, but the port of discharge, and the place of delivery and the place of delivery next thereto are described as the "China Sea (DONG AI, CHA)" respectively. Thus, this is clearly inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, and as long as Hong Kong does not expressly state that its final port of discharge is Chinese East Sea, the issuing bank does not have any obligation to accept a bill of lading different from the terms and conditions of the letter of credit (this case bill of lading takes the form of a multimodal transport document as seen above, and it is unclear whether the description on the bill of this case alone is shipping by the ship as required by the letter of credit from Hong Kong to that of Hong Kong).

On the other hand, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits concerning the port of discharge on the bill of lading and the port of discharge on the bill of lading, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out also has merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)