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

Defendant (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Choi Young-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

December 13, 2007

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gahap11956 Decided May 18, 2007

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 389,152 US dollars and 6% interest per annum from August 26, 2005 to the delivery 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.

2. Purport of appeal

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.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts concerning the argument of inconsistency in the bill of exchange of this case 2.B.(3) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (The "EACHGE" of the fifth and fifth lines below is called 'EXCHGE').

2. Determination on the assertion of inconsistency with the bill of exchange of this case

A. Subject matter of examination of documentary credit documents

Article 10 (b) (i) of the Uniform Credit Rules provides that "purchase means that "the bank authorized to negotiate shall pay for the bills of exchange and/or documents." Bills of Exchange are the means for settling the price of the letter of credit. In the negotiating Credit, there is a L/C transaction in which only shipping documents are purchased without the bill of exchange because shipping documents stipulated in the L/C are the subject of negotiation. However, when a L/C used as payment in international trade is opened, the bank must determine the bills and conditions of the L/C according to the various requests and instructions of the ordinary applicant. Article 13 (a) of the Uniform Credit Rules of the L/C provides that "the bank shall pay due attention to all documents stipulated in the L/C, and examine whether the documents are consistent with the terms and conditions of the L/C, and banks must examine all documents stipulated in the L/C in the L/C, so once the terms and conditions of the L/C are subject to examination."

B. Determination of inconsistency assertion

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 No. 1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 1, the Credit of this case stated "DDAFS AFT B/LDE" to the beneficiary of this case, and the bill of exchange of this case stated "DYS AFT 90 AFT B/L DITR MIG MITR OL FITR OL OLOFE OLOFE OLOFE REOTROE TROOE TROOE TROE TROOE TROOOE TROOE TROOE REOEOEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

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 of substantial investigation in investigating the negotiating document, but 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. Thus, first, the bill of exchange in this case purchased by the defendant shall be deemed to meet 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 governing law applicable to the relation of the bill of exchange in this case shall be examined, and the Private International Act shall provide that "the method of the act on the bill of exchange, bill of commitment and check shall be governed by the law of the place of signature" in Article 53 (1) concerning the method of the act on the bill of exchange in this case shall be governed by the law of the place of signature. The fact that the issuer of the bill of exchange in this case is a U.S. corporation, and that the signature of the bill in this case is a New York State is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the method of the act on the bill in this case shall be governed by the New York Law. Accordingly, Article 3-102 (1) (b) of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Commercial Code") of the United States New York Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Uniform Commercial Code") provides that the name "an act on the bill of exchange in this case shall be interpreted as the name of the drawee."

In addition, Article 56 of the International Standard Banking Practice provides that "the letter of credit shall not be opened on the condition that the applicant issues a bill of exchange in the future. If the letter of credit is requested by the applicant 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 Regulations of the letter of credit." Thus, the applicant who is not a party to the letter of credit prohibits the issuance of the bill of exchange in the front of the applicant in order to prevent the applicant from affecting the contractual relationship between the parties to the letter of credit, but banks shall not regard such bill of exchange as invalid if the previous letter of exchange is presented, but 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 of the letter of credit. In consideration of the fact that a third party, such as the applicant

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 (DDR EE) of the bill of exchange in this case is a blank space, and the bill of exchange in this case is not deemed to have a state and a regular nature, and the bill of exchange in this case is not written as DDAWN NAE NAE NAE NAEN NAEN NAE NAE REEE REEE REEE REEE REEEE YOE YOE YOE YOE YOEM YOEOOOE YOEOOOOE YOEOEOOOOOOOE REEEOEOEOEOOE YOEOEOEOE.

D. Sub-determination

Thus, the bill of exchange of this case does not coincide with the maturity stipulated in the letter of credit of this case, and it does not meet the requirements for the letter of credit of this case by omitting the statement of the drawee and failing to meet the requirements for the letter of credit of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking payment of the price of the letter of credit of this case on the premise that the conditions of

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion that legitimate bills of exchange have been presented again

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The documents requiring supplementation of the defects alleged by the Defendant from ○○ Trading and the bill of exchange No. 2 of this case presented by the Defendant, and the documents requiring supplementation of such defects and the bill of exchange No. 2 of this case sent to the Defendant, so the Defendant is obligated to repay the letter of credit to the Plaintiff.

(b) provision concerning the period for presentation of documents;

(1) Uniform Regulations of Credit

Section 42(a):All letters of credit shall specify the effective period and place for presentation of documents for payment and acceptance, or, except in the case of a general letter of credit for negotiation, the place for presentation of documents for negotiation. The effective period specified for payment, acceptance or negotiation shall be deemed to mean the effective period for presentation of documents.

Section 43(a):In addition to provisions on the effective period for presentation of documents, all the credit requiring presentation of transport documents must specify a specific period for presentation of documents, in conformity with the terms and conditions of the credit, starting from the date of shipment. If such period is not specified, banks shall not accept the documents presented to banks after the lapse of 21 days from the date of shipment, provided that in no case the documents must be presented within the effective period of the credit.

(2) International Standard Bank Practice

Article 16:Provisions concerning the last date for presentation stipulated in Article 43(a) of the Uniform Regulations of the Credit apply only to the presentation required to include one or more originals of the transport documents. The transport documents refer to the documents stipulated in Articles 23 through 29 of the Uniform Regulations of the Credit. In any case, documents must be presented by the expiry date of the Credit.

Article 20:Partial documents generally used in relation to the carriage of goods, for example, delivery order, delivery broker's receipt certificate, forwarding broker's delivery certificate, forwarding broker's delivery certificate, forwarding broker's delivery certificate, forwarding broker's receipt of goods, and receipt of goods, etc. do not constitute transportation documents stipulated in Articles 23 through 29 of the Uniform Regulations of the Credit. Article 43 of the Uniform Regulations of the Credit does not apply to these documents. Accordingly, these documents must be examined according to Article 21 of the Uniform Regulations of the Credit in the same manner as other documents unless otherwise stipulated in the Uniform Regulations of the Credit. In any case, these documents must be presented by the expiry date of the Credit.

Article 21: A copy of a transport document is not a transport document to which Articles 23 through 29 and 43 of the Uniform Regulations of the Credit apply. A transport clause of the Uniform Regulations of the Credit applies only when the original of the presented transport document exists. If the Credit allows the presentation of a copy other than the original one, the Credit must explicitly state a specific condition to that effect. If the copy is presented, a statement of the date of signature or issuance, etc. need not be made.

C. Determination

(1) On August 22, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased the required documents and the bill of exchange of this case from ○○ Trading and sent them to the Defendant on August 25, 2005. On September 2, 2005, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on September 2, 2005 by pointing out the instant request documents and the grounds for inconsistency with the bill of exchange of this case. On September 8, 2005, the Plaintiff sent the instant request documents and the deadline for supplementation of the defects asserted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on September 8, 2005, each of the instant bill of exchange received by the Defendant, “DRAFT 90 DIS AFTBE 90 DES B/LOTREOTREOTRAL,” and “NAM RED RES RES RES REEEN RENE RENE RENE RENY 2905,2005.”

According to the above facts of recognition, ○○ Trading shall issue and present to the plaintiff the second bill of exchange in this case, which supplemented the defects after September 2, 2005, for which the defendant notified the defects of the required documents of this case and the bill of exchange of this case, and it is obvious that the above date was passed on August 27, 2005, which is "within five days after the date of shipment," and therefore, the presentation of the second bill of exchange in this case does not comply with the payment terms of the letter of credit of this case.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that the transport document that reflects the transport contract among the documents required by the letter of credit of this case must be presented within the time limit for presentation of documents stipulated in the letter of credit, but other documents and bills of exchange that do not reflect the transport contract are sufficient when presented within the validity period of the letter of credit.

Therefore, the purport of the L/C requiring the presentation of transport documents in the Uniform Regulations is to prevent the export goods from being disadvantaged by being kept by themselves without presenting the documents even after shipment. However, it is a practice of L/C transaction in which all documents related to the L/C are presented in a lump sum and uniformly reviewed whether they coincide with each other. If the provisions on the time limit for presentation of the Uniform Regulations of the L/C apply only to “transport documents”, most of the documents such as bills of exchange, insurance documents, packing specifications, etc. in addition to transport documents are presented separately from transport documents and must be presented. In such a case, the L/C issuing bank must confirm whether they conform to the conditions of the L/C. The L/C issuing bank should only confirm whether the bill of exchange, insurance documents, and packing specifications, which reflects the right to the transaction goods, can be deemed to conform to the intent of the goods trader. In light of the fact that the L/C requires presentation of bills of exchange and the bill of exchange, if presented together with the bill of exchange and the bill of exchange, the bill of exchange can be presented together with the issuing bank.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Judges Choi Jae-in (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-dong,