Plaintiff (Law Firm Kim & Lee, Attorneys Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Kang Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 27, 2007

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 389,152 US dollars and 6% interest per annum from September 10, 2005 to May 18, 2007 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 389,152 US dollars and 6% interest per annum from August 26, 2005 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number), and Eul evidence 1 and 2:

A. Nonparty Co., Ltd. located in the Republic of Korea imported sob health foods (HEBAL HH FOD) from ○○○ Trac Trading located in the United States of America, and requested the Defendant to issue a credit.

B. On August 18, 2005, upon the request of the non-party corporation, the defendant opened a non-party company's free negotiating letter of credit (hereinafter "the letter of credit of this case") with the beneficiary of ○ ○ Raying, which is non-party corporation's beneficiary, and notified the plaintiff, whose principal place of business is in the United States, as the advising bank, of the issuance of the letter of credit of this case. The main contents of the letter of credit of this case are as follows.

○ Effective Period: September 17, 2005

○ Amount: US$ 389,152

○ Bills of Exchange: At 90 days from the date of issuance of a bill of lading

○ drawee: The name and address of the Korea Exchange Bank and the calendar point of the Korea Exchange Bank

○ Shipment: New York Port/Airport (NEW YORRT/ AI RPPEIN USA)

The destination of ○: Hong Kong/Airport (HONG KRTRT/ AI RPRT)

○ Description of goods or services:

본문내 포함된 표 번호 항목 명세 수량 단가 합계 1 허브건강식품 들버섯 제145번 160KG 미화 2,432.20달러/KG 389,152.00달러 ？ ？ 건버섯분말 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 미국제조 ？ ？ ？

○ Required Documents (DOCUENS RE QUID, hereinafter referred to as “instant Request Documents”)

(1) Three copies of the part concluding a commercial invoice (SIGND COMCECAL INVOICE)

(2) Three copies of the packing Statement (PACKING LIT)

(3) The Korean Exchange Bank's instruction issued in accordance with the order of the Seoul Foreign Exchange Bank, and the freight advance payment, and the notice office shall be the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (FUL, SES OF CALE ON OBARD OBE BGLS OL OE MAE MAE MAE MAE MAEEE REEEEE REEEEE REEEE REEEEEE REEEE REEEEE REEEEEE REEEE REEE REEEN REENG NAEDDD)

○ Additional Conditions: A bill of exchange with a maturity shall be purchased at sight, regardless of the time limit for the bill of exchange, and discount fees shall be borne by the buyer.

○ Presentation period: Documents must be presented within five days after the date of shipment.

provided that the credit must be presented within the expiry date of the credit.

○ Unless otherwise specified, the Uniform Regulations of the International Commercial Conference shall apply to the fifth amended Uniform Regulations of the Credit.

다. 한편, ○○ 트레이딩은 발행일 2005. 8. 19., 액면 US＄389,152.00로 된 환어음(이하 ‘이 사건 환어음’이라고 한다)을 발행한 후, 2005. 8. 22. 원고에게 이 사건 요구서류 및 이 사건 환어음을 제시하면서 매입을 요청하였고, 원고는 같은 날 소정의 서류심사를 마친 다음 이를 매입하였다.

D. On August 22, 2005, the Plaintiff, a negotiating bank, sought reimbursement of the letter of credit when sending the required documents of this case and the bill of exchange of this case to the Defendant, which was the issuing bank, which was the issuing bank. However, on August 25, 2005, the Defendant submitted the required documents of this case and the bill of exchange of this case, completed the examination of the prescribed documents, and notified the Defendant that he would refuse to repay the letter of credit on September 2, 2005, on the ground that nine (9) was as follows.

1) The instant L/C is “DDAFTS AT 90 DYS AFT B/L DTRE,” but it is not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the instant L/C, on the instant L/C, “90 DYS AFT B/L DAT DoES SIGHT OL FITS FITRAL OL EXE.”

2) The bill of exchange in this case is not written by the drawee.

3) The letter of credit of this case is "New York Port of destination and Hong Kong Port of destination". The commercial invoice and packing specifications are "Sap Kong from New Bath to New Kong", and are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit of this case.

4) The bill of lading is "the date of departure on August 22, 2005" and the commercial invoice and packing note are "SAILING OBUT 08/27/05" and the contents of each document are inconsistent.

5) The product description of the letter of credit of this case contains “NO. ITS 1”, and the commercial invoice and package specifications do not contain “NO. ITS 1”, and the letter of credit of this case does not contain quality indication. The commercial invoice and package specifications indicate “high quality.” As such, the product description of the letter of credit of this case and the product description of the commercial invoice and package specifications are inconsistent.

6) The letter of credit of this case does not state whether the bill of exchange with the maturity must be negotiated in sight, regardless of the date of payment. The documents presented by the plaintiff contain the necessary documents of this case and whether the bill of exchange of this case was negotiated in sight.

7) The fact that the bill of exchange number NO. AD000205 listed in the COVERING LET is not indicated in the bill of exchange

8) The export reference number of the bill of lading is I-017432A LC-Non-Party Company-2005-5, and the export reference number of commercial invoice and package specifications is LC- non-party Company-2005-5, inconsistent with each other.

9) The commercial invoice includes “ QUNTITY 160KG”, and the package specifications include “ QUNTITY 8CNS, G.W. 200KS, N.W. 160GS, and B/L, “ QUNTITY 8CTNS, G.W. 200.00KS, MES 30CFT, 0.85CM,” and the contents of each document are inconsistent.

E. On September 8, 2005, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to supplement the defects claimed by the Defendant and the following conditions: (a) on August 22, 2005, the date of issuance is identical to the bill of exchange of this case; (b) on August 22, 2005, the Plaintiff again requested the Defendant to refund the letter of credit on the ground that “DDAF 90 DAY AFT 90 DIS AFTBE OTR BITRAL FITRGE; (c) the addressee “NME ADD ADD ADD ADD RES ESS RES ESSGEENCHGE” (hereinafter “second bill of exchange of this case”); (d) on the ground that the documents of this case and the bill of exchange of this case were presented and presented, the Defendant again refused to refund the letter of credit on the ground that the period of the bill of exchange of this case was presented.

2. Determination as to claims for reimbursement of credit price

A. The parties' assertion

With respect to the Plaintiff’s seeking reimbursement of the amount of the letter of credit to the Defendant, an issuing bank of the instant letter of credit, as the negotiating bank of the instant letter of credit, the Defendant asserts that the instant letter of credit and the bill of exchange of this case are inconsistent with the requirements and conditions set forth in the instant letter of credit, and that it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s demand for reimbursement of the amount of the letter of credit, and

(b) Markets:

1) Norms on documentary credit documents review

However, this case’s L/C’s 5th Amendment of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (THE UNCITRM CUTR POTRAL RETRAL RES, INTRAL CHITRAL CHBOO 500 (193 REVIN), as seen earlier, provides that “The Uniform Regulations for Documentary Credits” shall apply to legal relations related to the L/C of this case. Thus, the banks examining the L/C of this case have a duty to examine whether all documents provided for in the L/C under Article 13(a) are consistent with the terms and conditions of the L/C’s international standard terms and conditions, and whether the international standard terms and conditions of the L/C are consistent with the standard terms and conditions of the L/C’s 5th Amendment. This case’s 20th Amendment of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits shall be deemed to have been consistent with the standard terms and conditions of the L/C’s international standard terms and conditions.

Meanwhile, according to Article 13(a) of the Uniform Credit Rule, a bank that examines a credit and its related documents has a duty to pay due attention to whether all the documents agreed to in the credit are strictly consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit on its face. However, the phrase that the letter of credit agreement should be strictly consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit on its face does not mean that the letter of credit agreement should be completely identical with one another. Even if there is a little difference in its own part, if the bank pays considerable attention to it, it is minor and does not cause a difference in the meaning of the text, and if it is possible to find out on its face that it does not harm all the terms and conditions of the credit on its face, it shall be deemed that the difference is consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit, and the judgment shall comply with whether the difference with the terms and conditions of the credit can be accepted in light of international standard bank transaction customs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63883, Jun.

2) Determination as to the assertion of inconsistency between the request documents of this case

A) Determination of inconsistency between the place of shipment and the place of destination

However, according to the facts stated above, Gap evidence 1, 2-3, 4, and 1-2 of the evidence No. 1 and 2 of the letter of credit of this case, the letter of credit of this case stated "ON ZR Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posn Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Posk Po.

B) Determination of inconsistency with the date of shipment

According to the statements in Gap evidence 2-3, 4, and 6, the bill of lading contains "CLEN OBARD: 08/22/05", and the commercial invoice and packing invoice contain "SAIINING OBOTR ABUD 08/27/05", but the bill of lading contains "CLEN OBORD: 08/22/05" as stated in the bill of lading, and the bill of lading is the date of shipment, and the bill of lading is the date of shipment, and the bill of lading's "OBOUT 08/27/05" as stated in the commercial invoice and packing invoice are the date of departure, and the bill of lading's statements are not necessarily consistent with both as the date of departure, and there is no reason for the defendant's assertion that the date of shipment as stated in the bill of lading's statements are included in the above documents as long as they are included in the date of departure and packing invoice.

C) Incompetence with the description of goods

However, Article 37 (c) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that "the description of goods in a commercial invoice must be identical to that in the credit." The description of goods in all other documents can be described as a general language that does not conflict with the description of the credit's goods. ① A commercial invoice is a document that can prove that the goods under the contract are delivered in compliance with the terms and conditions of the credit, so the description of the goods indicated in the commercial invoice must be strictly consistent with the description of the goods required in the credit, but at this time, the description of the goods stated in the commercial invoice must be strictly consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit, but at this time, the wording must be strictly consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit. Even if there is a difference in the self-government, the difference is insignificant if the bank exercises considerable care and does not cause a difference in the meaning of the text, and if it is possible to find out at all the same time that the condition does not harm the credit's goods, it shall be deemed inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the credit's credit.

In this case, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the above evidence No. 1, the letter of credit of this case stated that "N. 1, ITHHHHH PE, DESITR NAOO NAO Po.145 DDR Po.S.C.A. The defendant's commercial invoice and packing statement of this case did not contain any difference between the letter of credit and packing material No. 1, ESCRCRO PodUD Po.S.O.O.P.O.O.M.O.P.O.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.M.O.M.M.O.M.M.O.M.M.O.M.M.O.M.M.M.O.M.M.O.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.O.M.M.M.M.O.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.

(d) does not specify the purchase in sight;

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1 evidence, the letter of credit of this case can be recognized that "U.S.C. DDAFT M. BE NATR ATRS" is stated in the letter of credit of this case. However, even if a bill of exchange has been issued at a time limit, the negotiating bank must immediately purchase at sight despite the time limit for the bill of exchange, and it is not a condition that the bill of exchange and the required document should be written in the bill of exchange of this case and the required document, and otherwise, the defendant's assertion is without merit, unless there is any evidence to deem that the bill of exchange and the required document have been purchased at sight under the terms of redemption of the letter of credit of this case and the required document have been written in the bill of exchange of this case.

e) Disconformity between COVERING LETER and bill of exchange

However, according to the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the letter of credit of this case, COVING LTS contains No. 1 and No. 2 of the letter of credit of this case, although the bill of this case contains no No. AD04000205, it can be acknowledged that the bill of this case does not contain the serial number of the bill of exchange. However, COVVINING LTER's delivery of shipping documents to inform the negotiating bank that it purchased shipping documents to the issuing bank, it is merely a document prepared under the bank's convenience in order to make it inevitable, and it is not a document necessary to present shipping documents for payment, acceptance or negotiation of the letter of credit amount, and it is not deemed that it does not fall under the documents (DOCUENS) under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits. Thus, it cannot be refused to repay the letter of credit amount on the ground that the bill of this case does not coincide with the bill of exchange of this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(f)a disagreement in export reference numbers;

According to the statements in Gap evidence 2-3, 4, and 6, the export reference number of bill of lading i-017432A LC-2A LC-205-5, and the export reference number of commercial invoice and package specifications hC- non-party company-2005-5 can be recognized respectively. However, the export reference number of commercial invoice and package specifications hC- non-party company-205-5 cannot be seen as contradictory to each other, but there is no room for confusion as to each other of the different export reference numbers.

G) QUNTITY Corres

According to Gap evidence 3 and 4 of Gap evidence 2, the commercial invoice is merely " QUNT ITY 160KG", " QUN ITY 8CNS/ G. 200GS/W. 160KGS", and "NUBE 8CGE 8CNS/ G.W. 200.00KGS 200.00GS/ MES 30CFT 30CFT, 0.85CBM". The defendant's commercial invoice, packing list, and bill of lading 8CNS, total weight 200GG 160G 160GK 280's bill of lading 160's bill of lading 20GK 208's bill of lading 30GGGK 200's bill of lading 160's bill of lading 200's bill of lading 160's total weight.

3) Determination on the assertion of inconsistency with the bill of exchange of this case

A) Persons subject to examination of documentary credit documents

Article 10 (b) (i) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that "purchase means that a bank authorized to negotiate shall pay for the bill of exchange and/or documents." There is a documentary credit transaction in which the shipping documents stipulated in the Credit are subject to negotiation, and only shipping documents are purchased without using the bill of exchange. However, in the case of an international trade, the letter of credit used as payment means is normally determined according to the various requests and instructions of the applicant, and Article 13 (a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that "B Banks Musus ust us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us see the terms and conditions of the Credit."

B) Determination of inconsistency claims

First, with respect to whether the time limit of the bill of exchange of this case is consistent with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit of this case, the term of the bill of exchange is ① At sight (at sight after the date of confirmation of the existence of the office, and at sight after the lapse of a certain period of the council of law), ② at a fixed period after sight, ③ at a fixed period after sight, ④ at a fixed period after the date of issuance, ④ at a fixed date, and ④ at a fixed date, and Article 45 of the International Standard Bank Practice provides that “the time limit shall be in compliance with the terms

In this case, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-2, and 1 of the evidence No. 1, the L/C of this case stated "DA 90 DY AFT B/LDE", and the L/C of this case stated "DY 90 DIS AFT B/L MIG MITR MITR OLOF OL OL OLOFE OLOFE EXOE REOFE REOE TROE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOEOE REOEOE REOE REOEOF REOE REOE REOE REOEOF REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOE REOF REOEOE REE.

C) Determination as to the assertion that the drawee is not written

Next, the bill of exchange in this case has a formal defect because the drawee is not written on the bill of exchange in this case, and the negotiating bank is exempted from the duty to investigate the bill of exchange in the course of investigating the negotiating document, but the negotiating bank is not exempted from the duty to investigate whether the presented document conforms to the contents and the face of the letter of credit or whether the related document conforms to the condition and the regularness of the document (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50299, May 28, 2002, etc.). Thus, the bill of exchange in this case purchased by the defendant first satisfies the condition and the regularness of the bill of exchange in this case.

In order to determine whether the bill of exchange in this case is true and regular, the law applicable to the relation of the bill of exchange in this case shall be examined, and in relation to the method of the act of the bill of exchange, the Private International Act shall be governed by the law of the place of signature, and in relation to the method of the act of the bill, the method of the act of the bill of exchange in this case shall be governed by the law of the place of signature. The act of the bill in this case shall be governed by the law of the State of New York in the United States, since there is no dispute between the parties concerned, the signature of the bill in this case shall be the place of the act of the bill in this case. Accordingly, the method of the act of the bill in this case shall be governed by the law of the State of New York in the United States. Article 3-102 (1) (b) of the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States of New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Commercial Code").

In addition, Article 56 of the International Standard Bank Practice provides that "the L/C shall not be opened on the condition that the L/C applicant issues a bill of exchange in the future. If the L/C applicant requests to issue a bill of exchange in the future, banks shall regard such bill of exchange as additional documents examining it in accordance with Article 21 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits." While the L/C applicant who is not a party to the L/C prohibits the issuance of the bill of exchange in the front of the L/C applicant so as not to affect the contractual relationship between the parties to the L/C, banks shall not regard such bill of exchange as invalid, but if the former L/C applicant presents the bill of exchange, banks shall treat it as a bill of exchange useful for the payment of the issuing bank and examine it in accordance with the terms and conditions of the L/C, and third parties,

In this case, the fact that the bill of exchange in this case is written as DDR WE-ND NADDD NAS REE REEEGE YGE YOEM YIEM STRNCH as seen above. According to Gap evidence 2-2, it can be recognized that the drawee (DDRWE) column of the bill of exchange in this case is an official space. However, according to Gap evidence 2-2, the bill of exchange in this case is not deemed to have a state and a regular nature, and (2) according to Gap evidence 2-2, the bill of exchange in this case is not written as DDAWN DUEEN NATRAL NAEN REEN RES REGEE REOOOE REOEM YOOEM YOEOOOOOOOOM 608080,06OEOEMMM 20800, NAEEOEOEOEOEOEM.

D) The assertion that a legitimate bill of exchange has been presented again

In this regard, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff has a duty to pay the letter of credit to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff presented the required documents to supplement the defects asserted by the defendant from ○○ Trading and the second bill of exchange of this case and sent the documents to supplement such defects and the second bill of exchange of this case to the defendant.

However, Article 42(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that "All credit shall specify the effective period and place for presentation of documents for payment, acceptance or negotiation, except in the case of a general L/C. It shall be deemed that the effective period specified for presentation of documents is the effective period for presentation of documents." Article 43(a) of the same Rule provides that "In addition to the provisions on the effective period 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, consistent with the terms and conditions of the L/C. If this period is not specified, banks shall not accept the documents presented to banks after 21 days from the date of shipment: Provided, That in any case, all the documents stipulated in the L/C must be presented within the effective period of the L/C, and shall be presented within the 60th day prior to the expiration date of the UCP, and in particular, within the 3th day after the expiration date of the UCP, it shall not be deemed that the shipping documents will be presented within the 4th day after the delivery of the shipping documents.

In this case, on August 22, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased the required documents and the bill of exchange of this case from ○○ ○○ Track on August 22, 2005, and sent them to the Defendant on August 25, 2005. On September 2, 2005, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the defect by pointing out the requirement documents and the reasons for inconsistency with the bill of exchange of this case. On September 8, 2005, the instant request documents and the deadline for supplementation of the defects asserted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant appears to be “DAFT 90 DaS AFT 90 DB/LDEOEOE 90 Doz. Doz. 90 Doz. 90 Doz. 95 Doz.’s bill of exchange received by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and each of the instant bill of exchange was sent to the Plaintiff.”

Therefore, insofar as ○○ Track, the beneficiary of the instant L/C, presented to the Plaintiff as the negotiating bank the second bill of exchange in conformity with the terms and conditions stipulated in the instant L/C within September 17, 2005, which is the effective period of the instant L/C, it is reasonable to deem that the bill of exchange was presented as legitimate documents stipulated in the instant L/C. On the premise that the bill of exchange is a document to be presented from August 22, 2005, which is the shipping date stipulated in Article 43 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, until August 27, 2005, which is the shipping date stipulated in the instant L/C, and on the premise that the second bill of exchange was presented with the limit of the presentation period, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no obligation to refund the letter of credit is without merit.

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, the issuing bank of the letter of credit of this case is obligated to pay damages for delay from August 26, 2005 to the Plaintiff, the negotiating bank of the letter of credit of this case, the amount of USD 389,152, and the amount of the second bill of this case from September 10, 2005 to May 18, 2007, which are the day following the day on which the Defendant received the letter of credit of this case from the purchaser bank of the letter of credit of this case, to the day of May 18, 2007, the amount of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay from August 26, 2005 to the day after August 25, 2005). Thus, the portion of the bill of this case and the terms and conditions of the letter of credit of this case are inconsistent with the above.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Wil (Presiding Judge)