(a) Methods of applying for alteration of matters approved for export;

(b) the validity of an amendment to the terms and conditions of the credit received prior to written notification.

C. Whether the purchasing bank of the bill of exchange is obligated to investigate the documents substantially

(a) An export award may, if it has given a notification of amendment to the terms and conditions of the credit to a specialist even before receiving the full identification of the amendment from the issuing bank, apply for the change of the export approval with a certified copy of that professional copy;

(b) an amendment to the terms and conditions of the credit shall become effective, even after the written notification is received, if the export is approved by the bank without any objection to the full text of the advice on the amendment of the terms and conditions of the credit that cannot be revoked by the issuing bank.

C. The negotiating bank of a bill of exchange has a duty to investigate whether the documents presented in the course of investigating the documents are consistent with the matters stated in the letter of credit and their face value, and whether the documents meet the conditions of the relevant documents and their regularity, but the duty of substantial investigation is exempted.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Articles 7 and 9 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits

Shin Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Cho Heung Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na1187 delivered on May 3, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney and the grounds of supplementary appeal included therein are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, if the defendant bank as an agent of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, received a fixed written notice of amendment to the terms and conditions of the letter of credit from the issuing bank, the multiple non-party 1 corporation of December 31, 1970, which requested the defendant bank in accordance with the notice of amendment to the terms and conditions of the letter of credit of this case, should be accompanied by relevant documentary evidence in accordance with Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trading Business Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. However, since the defendant bank accepted the application for approval without attaching such documents and approved the modification, it erred in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in this regard, the court below selected the evidence, and generally, if the export bank received the fixed written notice of amendment to the terms and conditions of the letter of credit of this case from the issuing bank, it can immediately apply for approval for the amendment, attaching the full text of the letter of credit of this case to the non-party 1, 1971.

According to the evidence adopted by the court below in light of the records, it cannot be said that there was an error of finding facts without any evidence in finding the above fact based on the results of such verification, since the court below acknowledged the attachment of a copy which was not directly produced by the defendant in the process of such determination by evidence, and the court below did not recognize the fact that it was not asserted by the defendant since the court below acknowledged the attachment of a copy which was not directly produced by the defendant in the process of such determination based on evidence, and the court below did not recognize the fact that it was not accompanied by a copy of the letter of credit approval as to the amendment notification at the time of verification, since it was pointed out that the full text of the letter of credit amendment notification itself was not preserved, but it was stated that the document attached to the letter of credit application at the time of the request for approval as of December 31, 1970 was a mentcopy.

In addition, as recognized by the court below, if multiple exporters were to obtain the approval of the modification of the terms and conditions of the letter of credit from the Japanese branch bank, which is the issuing bank, without any objection to the part of the notification of the modification of the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, the judgment below is just in the same purport, since it can be seen that the modification of the terms and conditions of the letter of credit occurred after the regular written notification, even if it arrives after the regular written notification.

2. The court below further determined as follows on the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant bank suffered damage equivalent to US$ 18,900 in the bill of exchange because it failed to verify that the bill of exchange and its accompanying documents were falsely prepared by negligence when it neglected the duty to investigate whether the bill of exchange and its accompanying documents are consistent with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit when negotiating the bill of exchange issued by multiple parties on January 4, 1971 from the above multiple commercial corporation as the payer of the bank of the letter of credit in accordance with the letter of credit of this case.

In other words, according to the evidence at the time of original adjudication, the letter of credit of this case requires compliance with the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits. According to Article 7 of the Rules, the negotiating bank is obligated to examine whether the presented document conforms to the contents of the letter of credit in addition to whether the presented document conforms to its face value and regularity. On the other hand, according to Article 9 of the Rules, banks do not assume any liability or duty with respect to the specifications, quantity, quality, packing, value, delivery or delivery of the goods indicated in the document, and all other related persons, and it is not clear that the bank was exempt from its duty to investigate the documents, and it is not obliged from its duty to examine the documents in advance as a result of the amendment of the letter of credit of this case, even if it is anticipated that the bill of lading of this case was issued in advance for the amendment of the terms and conditions of the letter of credit of this case, and it is not clear that the bill of lading of this case was issued in advance prior to the amendment of the terms and conditions of the letter of credit.

The preparation of evidence conducted in the process of recognizing the above facts by the court below is lawful, and it cannot be said that there is a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the facts recognized by the court below are sufficiently supported by its adopted evidences, and it cannot be said that the court below recognized facts without any evidence, or erroneous facts.

In addition, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion based on the facts of its recognition does not seem to have been justified in the process of its determination, and the court below, unlike the judgment of the court below prior to remanding where the court below rendered that the notification of amendment to the terms and conditions of the letter of credit of this case was already made on December 31, 1970, and determined different facts by finding that the notification was made on December 41, 1971, unlike the judgment of the court below prior to remand, since the judgment of the court below prior to remanding that the notification of amendment to the terms and conditions of the letter of credit of this case was made on the premise that the notification of amendment to the letter of credit was made on January 4, 1971, cannot be criticized as violating or violating the judgment of the court below prior to remanding the terms and conditions of the letter of credit.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit and is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)