(영문) 서울고등법원 2009. 10. 15. 선고 2008나104309 판결

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6% interest per annum from October 25, 2007 to October 15, 2009; 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; 819,293.15% interest per annum from December 6, 2007 to September 26, 2008; 6% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 5 minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1. A of this Article may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

With respect to USD 2,784,203.15 and USD 734,910 among them, the Defendant served 6% per annum from October 25, 2007 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, 1,230,00 dollars per annum from August 6, 2007 to August 21, 2007, 10.26% per annum from August 21, 2007, 10.53% per annum from the day after August 22, 2007 to September 14, 2007, 10.3% per annum from the day after 10.5% per annum from September 15, 2007 to the day of full payment, 20.3% per annum from 10.35% per annum to December 20, 2007, 201.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following amount shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 734,910 US dollars and 10.935% per annum from October 24, 2007 to December 20, 2007, and 11.205% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

I. As to the "first letter of credit" of the first instance judgment

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 8, 10 through 32 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and witness non-party 1 and 2 of the trial court, and witness non-party 3 of the trial court and witness non-party 3 of the trial court.

[1]

○ Defendant is a bank established by the law of the People’s Republic of China and has its head office in North border, and the Plaintiff is a bank established by the law of Korea and has its head office in Seoul.

○ Defendant’s note 1) On July 20, 2007, the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the U.S. branch of the non-dis

○ 20 Credit Number: (Credit Number 1 omitted)

○ 31C Opening Date: July 20, 2007

○○ 40E applicable provisions of this Credit: UCP in force as of the date of issuance (UCP LTSTSVIVON)

○ 31D Effective Period and Place: China on August 5, 2007

○ 50 Applicant: QINGDO SHENG FO CO, LTD) QING ELD fOD

○ 59 Beneficiaries: United States Trade

○ 32B Credit Amount: US$ 668,100

○ 41D: Free Purchase (AVAILABLE WITWY YGGY BY YGION)

○ 42C: At 90 days after sight (90 DYS AFT SIGHT)

○ 44E Port: RUSSIN PRT

○ 44F Port of Unloading : China's name

○ 44C Final Loading Date: July 15, 2007

○ 45A Product Statement: Free Lighting no less than 20 m of approximately 500.00 M and G (the state of removal of Hadless and utteds, hairs and interiors) (ABOUT 500.00 MT PEE PALC HaN 20CMG)

○ 46A Demand documents: the freight rate shall be the applicant and the place of notice, and the unclaimed bill of lading issued in the bearer order form of a blank endorsement (including three originals and three copies of non-transferable bills of lading), etc.

○○ 47A Additional Conditions: Quantity not more than 10 per cent and the excess or excess of the amount are allowed (BOTH QUTTITY AMOT 10PCORE RE ALOED, etc.

○ 72 Information on the addressee of the sender: This Credit applies to the 6th Amendment of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 2007).

[2]

The U.S. branch of the Defendant requested the Busan Bank of Korea to issue the first L/C by SWIFT, and on July 20, 2007, the Busan Bank received the above P/C from the Busan Bank on July 20, 2007.

At that time, in the SIFT system of the Busan Bank, the experts receiving from abroad after 18:00 were printed out on the next business day and delivered to the beneficiary, and then printed out to July 23, 2007, the notice of establishment of the Busan Bank was issued.

○ Busan Bank sent a notice of establishment that was printed out on July 23, 2007 on July 20, 2007 by the notice of establishment on July 20, 2007, at around 19:37, a week 4) Monopoly sent to Muan Trade.

At around 20:00 on July 20, 2007, ○ America requested the Plaintiff to purchase the first letter of credit by presenting to the Plaintiff a copy of the first letter of credit and the documents required by the first letter of credit, which was received in advance.

On the same day, Nonparty 1 called Nonparty 4 to the person in charge of the Busan Bank, and confirmed that the copy of the first L/C presented by the Plaintiff from the Busan Bank corresponds to the first L/C received by the Defendant’s Busan Bank from the Defendant’s U.S. branch.

At the time of 00, Nonparty 1 asked that the first L/C received from Nonparty 4 and the Busan Bank can be provided to the Plaintiff on July 23, 2007, when the holidays took place.

Pursuant to ○○, Nonparty 1 confirmed the conformity of the terms and conditions of the letter of credit stated in the copy of the first letter of credit on July 20, 2007, and received the documents required by the first letter of credit, and paid USD 734,910 as the purchase price of the first letter of credit to the United States Trade.

○○ After July 23, 2007, the Plaintiff received the first letter of credit received from the Defendant’s Busan Bank from the Defendant’s U.S. branch through the trade.

[3]

Around 17:31 on July 26, 2007, the U.S. branch office of the Defendant received the first letter of credit and the required documents from the Plaintiff. On August 3, 2007, the Defendant’s U.S. branch office notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of payment of the first letter of credit.

At the time of ○○, the Defendant’s U.S. branch notified the refusal of payment on the ground that the port of shipment and the description of goods stated in the bill of credit do not coincide with the terms of the first letter of credit.

2. Negotiation of Credit

A. The defendant's assertion

On July 20, 2007, the notice of the opening of the first letter of credit was not given. The plaintiff only received a copy of the first letter of credit which was received in advance from the Busan bank, and this does not constitute a negotiation of the letter of credit. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim against the defendant for the payment of the first letter of credit amount.

B. Determination

(1) As seen earlier, the first letter of credit was opened on July 20, 2007, and its note 5) provides that the applicable rules shall be “UCP LTSVVVION”. Thus, the first letter of credit is governed by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits 6 (hereinafter the above 6th letter of credit’s Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits) (hereinafter the above 6th letter of credit’s Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits).

(2) Article 2 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides, “The purchase shall mean the purchase of bills of exchange (which shall not be a designated bank) and/or documents with the consent to the payment of the price by the designated bank on or before the banking business day on which reimbursement is due to the complying presentation, or by paying the price before the designated bank.”

The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits defines the above negotiation as the purchase of "bills of exchange and/or documents". Since the credit is not a single independent means of payment, such as a bill or check, it cannot be viewed that the credit itself cannot be distributed, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the credit is the subject of the negotiation immediately. However, the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits does not stipulate that the original copy of the credit is presented as above.

In light of this point, in negotiating bills of exchange and/or documents issued on the basis of the letter of credit, the original of the letter of credit does not necessarily require to be presented, and if a copy of verifying authenticity is presented, the effect of the negotiation shall be recognized (hereinafter referred to as "purchase of the letter of credit").

(3) However, according to the above, on July 20, 2007, the branch of the △△△ Party requested the Busan Bank to issue the first letter of credit by SIFT, and received the first letter of credit from the Busan Bank. On the same day, the Busan Bank received the first letter of credit from the Busan Bank. On the same day, the Busan Bank presented the first copy of the first letter of credit received from the Busan Bank from the Busan Bank to the Plaintiff. On the same day, the △△ was confirmed that the copy of the first letter of credit was consistent with the first letter of credit received from the Busan Bank. On the same day, the Plaintiff received the documents required by the first letter of credit from the Busan Bank, and paid US$ 734,910 with the purchase price of the first letter of credit. The Plaintiff received the first letter of credit from the Busan Bank on July 23, 2007 through the first letter of credit from the Busan Bank.

(4) If so, on July 20, 2007, notice of the opening of the first letter of credit was valid, and on the same day, the plaintiff was effective to purchase the first letter of credit. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Terms of credit

A. The defendant's assertion

The bill of lading of the first letter of credit is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the first letter of credit, and thus the plaintiff cannot demand the defendant to pay the first letter of credit amount.

B. Determination

(1) Article 2 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides, “The presentation to be done on a daily basis shall be subject to the conditions of the credit, the provisions of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits to the extent applicable, and the presentation in accordance with international standard banking practices.”

(2) According to the statements in the evidence of No. 1 of △△△, the first letter of credit is 9) the port of shipment is RUSSIN PTRT (rat port). The bill of lading of the first letter of credit is recognized as the port of shipment as the "P.KMCHATKA" (P.KMCHA), and the port of shipment is recognized as the port of shipment.

Article 100 of the △△ International Financial Practice provides that “Where the geographical area or area of the loading or unloading port is given in the letter of credit (e.g., “all European ports”), the bill of lading must indicate the actual loading or unloading port, and such place must be within the relevant geographical area or area as stipulated in the letter of credit.”

△△, if so, the entry of the port of shipment in the bill of lading in the bill of lading as “P. KAMCHATKA” (P.C.), is only a geographical area or area, but does not state the actual port of shipment in that area or area, and does not comply with the terms and conditions of the first letter of credit.

(3) According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 1, the first letter of credit is 11) the product description is 'FROZN PALACK H 20CMP' (HND 12), while the bill of lading No. 1 letter of credit is 'FR ZEN PALACK HHD 20CM'(WWG 200cm). The bill of lading No. 1 letter of credit is 'FREN PALACK HG 20CM(WG G G).

Article 25 of the International Standard Banking Practice of △△△△ provides that “No error or error that does not affect the meaning of the language or language shall be deemed to be inconsistent with the documents.”

In the event that there is a disagreement between the terms and conditions of the letter of credit and the shipping documents attached to the letter of credit, if such disagreement is not basic matters required by the nature of the letter of credit and the documents concerned, or if it is recognized as simple and clear as having occurred in the course of drawing up the documents, it shall not be deemed that such disagreement is not a disagreement between the shipping documents and the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. However, if it is not clear from the bank that such disagreement is an obvious error or if there is an important change in the meaning due to such difference, it shall be deemed that it falls under the disagreement between the terms and conditions of the letter of credit and the shipping documents (see Supreme Court Decision 200

According to the above facts, while the first letter of credit states the product description as 20C UP (20 cm or more), the bill of lading contains the word "20CM (20 cm)" and the word "UP" is omitted in the bill of lading of the first letter of credit states the product description as "20CM (20 cm or more." Thus, the omission of the word "UP" as above constitutes a case where there is a significant change in its meaning due to a difference in the description, since the omission of the word "UP" is regarded as a case where there is a significant change in its meaning due to a difference in the description. Thus, it is not inconsistent with the condition of the first letter of credit.

4. Notice of non-payment;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the defendant delayed the notification of non-payment, the defendant cannot assert any inconsistency with the above terms and conditions of the letter of credit.

B. Determination

(1) Article 16(c) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides that “When a nominated bank acting in accordance with designation, a confirming bank, if any, or an issuing bank decides to refuse to pay or negotiate, it shall notify the presenter at a time to that effect.”

In addition, Article 16 (c) provides that "the notice required by paragraph (c) of Article 16 shall not be later than the end of the fifth business day, counting from the day following the date of presentation, if it is impossible to use it by telegraph or by any other prompt means."

In addition, paragraph (f) of the same Article provides that "If the issuing bank or confirming bank fails to act in accordance with the provisions of this Article, it shall not assert that the bank is not a complying presentation of documents."

(2) However, according to the above evidence, the defendant's main branch received the first letter of credit and the required documents from the plaintiff around 17:31 of July 26, 2007. The defendant's main branch notified the plaintiff on August 3, 2007 of refusing payment of the first letter of credit, and the reason for refusing payment was that the port of loading and the description of the goods stated in the bill of lading do not coincide with the conditions of the first letter of credit as seen above.

(3) If so, the defendant's notice of rejection of payment was made after the fifth business day from July 27, 2007, the day following the date of presentation of the first letter of credit and the required documents, and the fifth business day from July 27, 2007, and therefore, the defendant cannot assert any inconsistency with the above conditions of the letter of credit pursuant to Article 16 (f) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits.

5. Fraudulent transactions;

A. The defendant's assertion

Since the transaction by the first letter of credit constitutes a fraudulent transaction which ices the letter of credit, the plaintiff cannot demand the defendant to pay the first letter of credit amount.

B. Determination

As above, the defendant did not assert the specific contents as to the fraudulent transaction, and even based on all evidence submitted by the defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the transaction by the first letter of credit constitutes a fraudulent transaction, or that the plaintiff knew or could have known that the transaction constitutes a fraudulent transaction at the time of purchase, and there is no other evidence to support this point. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

6. Sub-committee;

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 734,910 US dollars 734,910 of the price of the first letter of credit and damages for delay at the rate 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 October 15, 2009, which is the date following the due date of the bill of exchange of the first letter of credit to October 25, 2007, which is the date following the due date of the bill of exchange of the first letter of credit to the date of the full payment (the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay damages for delay at the third day of the first letter of credit).

Ⅱ As to the "third Credit" of the first instance judgment

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

[1]

The U.S. branch of the Defendant issued an irrevocable Credit (hereinafter referred to as the “third Credit”) as follows with the U.S. Trade beneficiary:

○ 20 Credit Number: (Credit Number 2 omitted)

○ 31C Opening Date: August 17, 2007

○○ 40E Applicable Acts: This Credit shall apply to UCP which is in force as of the date of issuance (UCP LTSSVVION)

○ 31D Validity Period and Place: Korea on September 5, 2007

○ 50 Applicant: QINGDO JAO JIYU MICHE CO. LTD)

○ 59 Beneficiaries: United States Trade

○ 32B Credit Amount: US$ 780,300

○ 41D: Free Purchase (AVAILABLE WITWY YGGY BY YGION)

○ 42C: At 90 days after sight (90 DYS AFT SIGHT)

○ 44E Port: Russia Sea (RUSSIN SEA)

○ 44F Port of Unloading : China's name

○ 44C Final Loading Date: August 20, 2007

○○ 45A Product Statement: S/D red s/D (which has at least 13 color color) in the frozen condition of 500 metric tons, the physical nature of which is not diesel but the size of which is at least 800Gs (FROE PINK PINK SOLS/D MOL COTR COMTR 13 UPP, NO JAL YAL MOL 800G UP, QUNTITY 500MTS)

○ 46A Demand documents: the freight rate shall be the applicant and the location of the notice, and the unclaimed bill of lading issued in the direction of the bearer blank (including three originals and three copies of the non-transferable bill of lading), etc.

○○ 47A Additional Conditions: Quantity not exceeding 5% and the excess or excess of the amount are allowed (BOTH QUTTITY AMOT 5PCS ALORE ALOED)

Information on the addressee of the sender 72: This Credit applies to the 6th revised Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 2007).

[2]

On July 18, 2007, prior to the issuance of the third letter of credit, the Plaintiff negotiated eight L/C negotiations from July 18, 2007 to February 27, 2007. The issuing bank refused to pay the above L/C amount, and the Plaintiff demanded M/L to pay the above purchase amount.

Of August 2007, Nonparty 3, the representative director of the ○○ U.S. trade, asked Nonparty 1 to take part in the Plaintiff’s person in charge of Nonparty 1 and to negotiate with Nonparty 3’s applicant of the credit who has been refused to make payment as above and make the payment of the price of the credit. If the payment is refused, Nonparty 3, who is the representative director of the ○○ U.S. trade, requested the Plaintiff to negotiate the credit which was issued in relation to the tobacco export from Russia, imported from Russia and imported from Russia, and subsequently, requested the Plaintiff to make payment.

[3]

On August 17, 2007, the Defendant issued a third letter of credit on August 17, 2007, and on August 20, 2007, the L/C requested the Plaintiff to negotiate the third letter of credit, with the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the purchase price of the rejected letter of credit.

At the time of ○○, the Plaintiff, even if purchasing a third letter of credit, requested that the purchase amount be appropriated for the redemption of the purchase price of the existing letter of credit, in accordance with the Plaintiff’s Foreign Exchange Business Handling Regulations, and that the L/C applicant of the third letter of credit, who was refused to pay, is in negotiations with Nonparty 3, and therefore, the L/C applicant of the third letter of credit requested that some of the purchase price of the third letter of credit be used.

○ On August 27, 2007, the Plaintiff and U.S. trade agreed to negotiate the third L/C with the Plaintiff, but the purchase amount was deposited into the u.S. ordinary deposit account. If the third L/C price is paid to the Plaintiff, the delayed period was set off and repaid from the existing L/C purchase price, and the balance was withdrawn from the u.S. trade.

The plaintiff confirmed the conformity of the terms and conditions of the letter of credit stated in the third letter of credit on the same day and received the documents required by the third letter of credit, and deposited USD 819,293.15 with the purchase price of the third letter of credit in the account of the United States Trade.

[4]

After ○○, on September 6, 2007, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant to pay the third L/C payment, and the Defendant rejected the payment on September 4, 2007.

On December 4, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) paid three of the purchase price of the existing Credit, which was refused to pay, set off and repaid in full from the above separate deposit account; (b) notified Murgian trade on or around December 7, 2007; and (c) notified Murg trade of this fact; and (d) did not raise any objection against Murg trade.

2. Negotiation of Credit

A. The defendant's assertion

On August 27, 2007, the Plaintiff deposited USD 819,293.15 in the separately-deposited account and prevented the use of the M&A. However, on December 4, 2007, the Plaintiff offsets the Plaintiff’s claim against the M&A against the Plaintiff’s claim against the M&A. Since the Plaintiff actually failed to pay the purchase price of the third letter of credit, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have purchased the third letter of credit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot claim the Defendant to pay the third letter of credit payment.

B. Determination

(1) As seen earlier, the third letter of credit was opened on August 17, 2007, and its application rules are “UCP LTSSVVION”. Thus, the third letter of credit also applies the above UCP.

(2) As seen earlier, Article 2 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides, “The purchase refers to the purchase of bills of exchange (which is not a designated bank) and/or documents by a nominated bank on or before the banking business day on which reimbursement is due to the nominated bank, or by giving consent to the payment of the price.”

As above, the meaning of “the matter stipulated as “in the course of payment or payment” refers to cases where the documents of the credit are simply examined or the price is not actually paid, and the actual payment of the price refers to cases where the actual price is immediately paid by means of cash, check, bank, transfer through the bank, account transfer, etc., or an unconditional and absolute obligation that shall be paid definitely on a specified date, thereby substituting the immediate payment of the actual price.

(3) However, according to the above, around August 20, 2007, the △△△ Plaintiff presented the third letter of credit and its required documents in accordance with the request for the purchase of the Pacific trade. On August 27, 2007, the △△△△△ deposited USD 819,293.15 in the separate deposit account of the Pacific Trade in accordance with the agreement with the Luxembourg on August 27, 2007, and the contents of the △△△ agreement were the 3rd letter of credit, the Plaintiff purchased the 3rd letter of credit, and deposited the 3rd letter of credit into the separate deposit account, and if the 3rd letter of credit was paid to the Plaintiff, the △△△△△ was paid the purchase price by offsetting 2 of the 3rd letter of credit, the delayed period of which was old, and then withdrawn and used the balance.

(4) Accordingly, inasmuch as △△△△ decided to purchase the third credit at the request of Luxembourg, and accordingly deposited US$819,293.15 in the Luxembourg’s separate account, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have immediately paid the third credit purchase price, and as at the time of △△△△△△△, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to repay the purchase price of other L/C to the Plaintiff, and the amount deposited in the said separate account may be offset by agreement with the Plaintiff, and accordingly, even if it is subject to restrictions on the disposition of the above amount, it shall be in accordance with a separate agreement between the Plaintiff and Luxembourg with the intent to secure the above repayment obligation, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the effect of the Plaintiff’s immediate payment of the actual price shall not be denied.

Therefore, the plaintiff is deemed to have valid purchase of the third letter of credit, so this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. False and fraudulent transactions.

A. The defendant's assertion

The request documents of the third letter of credit delivered by the Plaintiff from the Liby-party trade are the documents that the applicant did not load the goods or forged while shipping other goods. The Plaintiff could have known such forgery, and thus the Plaintiff cannot claim the payment of the third letter of credit amount against the Defendant.

B. Determination

(1) Article 15(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits provides, “If the issuing bank determines that a presentation is consistent, it must settle the payment at the same time.”

In order for the issuing bank to refuse payment of the L/C amount, the mere fact that the documents were forged or that the L/C transaction constitutes fraudulent transaction by the beneficiary, etc. is insufficient. It should be recognized that the negotiating bank was related to him/her or was aware of or had sufficient reasons to suspect it at the time of negotiation (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da68266, Jan. 24, 2003; 2000Da60296, Oct. 11, 2002, etc.).

(2) Nonparty 3 stated that the goods transaction by the third letter of credit was an actual transaction, and all the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the transaction by the third letter of credit constitutes fraud or the third letter of credit requirement was forged, and that the Plaintiff was related to it at the time of the purchase or was related to it or there was sufficient reason to suspect it. The Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit, as there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4. Sub-committee:

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of USD 819,293.15 of the three letters of credit and delay damages at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from the date following the due date of the bill of exchange of the third letter of credit to the date of September 26, 2008, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

III. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of USD 1,554,203.15, including USD 734,910 for the first letter of credit and USD 819,293.15 for the third letter of credit.

However, the Plaintiff did not appeal the part of the first instance court's rejection of the claim as to "the second letter of credit", and the part as to "the first letter of credit and the third letter of credit" in the first instance court's judgment are unfair with different conclusions as seen above. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the first instance court's decision, including claims for damages for delay with respect to the first letter of credit and the third letter of credit extended in the trial.

Judges Cho Young-hee (Presiding Judge)

1) Sand Long Long

2) The Information Society for the United Nations for the United Nations for the United Nations for the United Nations for the United Nations for the United Nations.

Note 3) Didvice

Note 4) Facsime

5) Alpable Rules

6) The Civil Code No. 600 (2007 Subvis) No. 600 (2007 Subvis) shall be included in the Civil Code for the United States of the United States of America and the Pactics.

7) The Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. - Doz. Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - Doz. - - Doz. - - Doz. - - Doz. - - - Sim

주8) Complying presentation means a presentation that is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit, the applicable provisions of these rules and international standard banking practice.

Note 9) Sorring of Porring

10) If a cgradrge (e,g., hereinafter “A company European Port”), 100 Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. gegradrge, 100 Doz. Doz. Doz. 100 Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz. Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz. Do., Do., Do., Do., Do., Do., Do., Do., Do.,

Note 11) Descepts

Note 12) Head and Gutted; the state of removal of head and interior;

주13) A misspelling or typing error that does not affect the meaning of a word or the sentence in which it occurs, does not make a document discrepant.

14) 14) 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이이 이 이 이이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이 이이 이이 이이 이이 이 이이 이이 이이 이 이이 이 이이 이이 이이 이이 이이 이이 이이 이 이

15) The Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, the 16(c) of the Act on the Management of Administrative Affairs and Fisheries, shall be responsible for excluding the matters to be decided by the Act on the Management of Administrative Affairs and Fisheries, and 15(c) of the Act on the Management of Administrative Affairs and Fisheries, and 16(c) of the Act on the Management of Administrative Affairs and Fisheries.

주16) If an issuing bank or a confirming bank fails to act in accordance with the provisions of this article, it shall be precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation.

17) The Ngoti Domin Domin dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr / or dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr dr s

18) 18 note 18 이이이 이이 이이 이이 이이 이이이 이이 이이 이이 이이 이 이이 이이 이이 이이 이 이이

심급 사건

-서울중앙지방법원 2008.9.26.선고 2007가합111631

서울고등법원 2009.10.15.선고 2008나104309

-대법원 2012.1.27.선고 2009다93817

원심판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2008. 9. 26. 선고 2007가합111631 판결

본문참조판례

-2002. 10. 11. 선고 2000다60296 판결

-대법원 2002. 10. 11. 선고 2000다60296 판결

-대법원 2003. 1. 24. 선고 2001다68266 판결

-대법원 2003. 11. 14. 선고 2002다7770 판결

본문참조조문

-상법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법