A case holding that a bank whose credit was requested for negotiation is liable for losses incurred by the bank's expiration of the term of validity of the repurchase

A bank that received a request for negotiation of a credit is liable to compensate the negotiating bank designated in the credit for losses incurred due to its neglect in obtaining accurate payment from the issuing bank of the letter of credit, as it is obligated to take the procedure of repurchase within the effective date of negotiation.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Industrial Bank of Korea (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na152 delivered on February 14, 1978

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the second ground:

In full view of the evidence of its employment, the court below erred by comparing the measures recognized as November 15, 1972 by the day when the defendant bank received in order for the bank to negotiate the letter of credit and the shipping documents accordingly under the name of the non-party Thai Industrial Co., Ltd., and compared the records, and there is no ground to argue that there is any misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence such as the lower court.

With respect to the third point:

According to the court below's decision, on October 31, 1972, the shipping date of the above letter of credit, was completed without defects and submitted all documents necessary for the negotiation to the defendant bank on November 15 of the same year, which is the effective date of the negotiation, and the defendant bank also purchased at a discount, the defendant bank should present shipping documents to the non-party 1 bank, which is the negotiating bank under the above letter of credit, and request the re-purchase, to the non-party 1 bank, which is the issuing bank under the above letter of credit, for the reasons that the non-party 1 refused the above letter of credit's export negotiation, and the non-party 1 bank's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the records, the plaintiff prepared a letter of credit, gushes, packing statement, certificate of voyage, bill of lading, and bill of exchange, etc. issued by the above Taeman Industrial Company as payer, and paid the discounted amount upon receiving the request for purchase, and then the defendant paid it at the discounted amount. Since the non-party 1 Bank designated as the negotiating bank under the above letter of credit delays the purchase procedure, the defendant's non-party 1 Bank did not perform its obligation to take the purchase procedure within the effective period for purchase as against the above non-party 1 company, and thereby, the above non-party 1 company was refused to pay this case and suffered losses. According to the court below's reasoning that the defendant's claim for damages was transferred from the non-party 1 company to the above non-party 1 company, and that the defendant's claim for damages against the above non-party 1 company's non-party 7 company's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's claim for payment of this 97's claim.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is with merit, and therefore, in accordance with Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)