신용장거래에서 불일치서류에 따른 개설은행의 지급거절 후 서류반송에 관한 연구
A Study on the Return of the Documents after Refusal of Payment by Issuing Bank based on Discrepant Documents in Letter of Credit Transaction
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 연구는 개설은행에 제시된 서류가 신용장조건과 불일치하다고 판단한 개설은행이 UCP 600 제16조(c)(iii)에 따라 지급거절을 통지하면서 제16조(c)(iii)ⓐⓑⓒ에 근거하여 불일치서류 상태를 통지하고 서류를 반송하지 않은 국내외 판례를 분석하여, 개설은행이 불일치서류에 대하여 지급거절 통지를 하고 합리적인 기간 내에 서류반송을 하지 않았다면 이를 개설은행의 통지의무 위반으로 해석할 수 있는지를 검토하였다. 은행이 서류를 반송하겠다는 의사를 밝혔으나 반송하지 않거나, 부당한 지연 후에 반송하는 경우, 수익자는 신용장이 만료되기 전에 서류를 처리할 기회를 잃어버리거나 준수 서류를 다시 제시할 기회를 상실할 수 있고, 상당한 지연으로 인해 물품의 보관 비용 등 문제가 발생할 수 있기 때문에 신속한 서류반송을 국내외 판례들과 ICC 은행위원회가 주문하고 있다. 또한 은행이 이러한 통지에 근거하여 행동하지 않은 경우, UCP 600 제16조 (f)항의 배제 조항이 적용될 가능성이 높으며, 이에 따라 제시가 불일치했음에도 불구하고 은행이 대금지급을 해야 하는 상황에 놓이게 될 수 있으므로 은행의 주의가 필요하다. 은행의 불일치서류에 대해 반송 또는 보관기간과 관련한 명확한 UCP 규정이 부재한 상황이고, 법원에서는 국제은행 실무자들의 관행 상 제3은행영업일 안에 이루어져야 한다고 판단하고 있으나, 국제거래를 고려할 때 각 은행이 처한 상황이 다를 수 있기 때문에 이러한 상황을 고려하여 합리적인 서류 반송기간을 UCP 규정에 포함시키는 것이 필요하다. 또한 불일치서류에 대한 개설의뢰인의 권리포기 또한 UCP 상에 명시적 규정이 부재하므로 이에 대한 보완도 요구된다.
Abstract
Purpose : This study verifies that in case of that the issuing bank, which determines that the documents presented are discrepant with the terms of L/C, notifies the refusal of payment based on Article 16(c)(iii) of the UCP 600 and then didn’t return the discrepant documents to the presenter, whether the failure to return the documents can be interpreted as a violation of the issuing bank's notification obligation, and what is the appropriate period for documents return. Research design, data, methodology : This study analyzes two cases(Supreme Court 2018DU47714 and Fortis Bank and Stemco UK Limited v. Indian Overseas Bank[2010] EWCA Civ 58). Results : The domestic precedent did not consider the return of documents at all in determining the right payment against the discrepant documents under L/C, but the foreign precedent judged that the delay in the return of the discrepant documents was considered a violation of the bank's notification obligation. Conclusions : After the discrepancy notice based on one of the four items in Article 16(c)(iii) of the UCP 600, if the issuing bank does not return discrepant documents or returns them after an unfair delay, the beneficiary may lose the opportunity to present compliance documents again before the L/C expires, and problems such as storage costs or demurrage costs might be occured. After hold notice or return notice against discrepancies on the basis of the Article 16, the bank’s follow-up action is a return the original and copy of the documents to to the presenter immediately as mentioned by the precedents and the ICC Bank Committee. If the bank does not act on the basis of these notices, Article 16(f) of UCP 600 is likely to apply, and the bank could be placed on pay despite the discrepancy in the presentation, so bank should be careful.
참고문헌 (26)
- Chung, S. I., "Developing a Documentary Credit Dispute Resolution System : An ICC Perspective", Fordham International Law Journal, 19(4) (1995)
- Ha, H. S., "A Case Study on Refusal of L", C Payment in Accordance with Violation of Notification against Discrepancy by Issuing Bank-Focusing on the Case of Chinese Court, 2017, pp.18(4), ~
- Hang, Y. L, "Grounds for Withholding Payment in Documentary Credits", Doctor
- Jeong, B. D., "A Study on Issues of the Standard of Documentary Inspection and Ways to Improve under Documentary Credit of UCP 600", Journal of International Trade and Insurance, 12(2) (2011)
- Kang, W. J., "Waiver Requirements and Implication of Discrepant Documents Reflected on UCP 600", Korea Trade Review, 32(2) (2007)
- Kim, C S., "An Analysis on the Formality of Refusal in Documentary Letter of Credit", The Journal of International Trade & Commerce, 9(6) (2013)
- Kim, S. J, "Compliance Criteria for Documents of the Letter of Credit: Focused on the Precedents of Korean Supreme Court", Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
- Kim, Y. H., "A Study on the Right to ask for Waiver by Letter of Credit Issuing Bank", Korea Trade Review, 28(1) (2013)
- Kim, Y. I., "A Study on the Important Issues of Documents Examination in the L", C Transactions, 2013, pp.15(4), ~
- Lee, C. S., "A Study on the Notice of Discrepant Documents in the L", C Transactions, 2009, pp.22(2), ~
- Lee, C. S., "A Case Study on the Standard for Examination of Commercial Invoice and Notice of Discrepant Documents in the L", C Transactions, 2013, pp.26(1), ~
- Lee, J. S., "Payment Refusal against Discrepancy in Transport Document under L", C Transaction, 2017, pp.42(2), ~
- Lee, S. H., "A Study on the Obligations of the Issuing Bank in Payment Refusal under UCP 600", Korea Trade Review, 46(5) (2021)
- Song, C. S., "Sectoral Dispute Resolution in International Banking(Documentary Credit Dispute Expertise : DOCDEX)", Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 30(3) (2013)
- Lee, J. H., "A Study on the Legal Relationship between Seizure of Good Payment Receivable and Payment of Letter of Credit", Korea Trade Review, 48(5) (2023)
- "UCP 600(Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits)", ~
- "ICC Banking Commission Opinions 1995-2001", ~ (1995)
- "ICC Banking Commission Opinions 2012-2016", ~ (2012)
- "Commentary on UCP 600", ~
- "2017GUHAB52153(District Court)", ~
- "2017NU82446 (High Court)", ~
- "2018DU47714 (Supreme Court)", ~
- EWCA Civ 58, , 2010
- "Letters of Credit: Liabilities of Issuing Banks" (2011)[URL]
- "Documentary Credits on the mend – international letter of credit practice receives a welcome boost from English and US Court decision. Article 16rejection procedure and Documneary Credit Structures" (2011)[URL]
- "UCP 600: Return of Documents -The Clock is Ticking" (2010)[URL]