TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2011Da16431, 16448, 16455 Decided October 13, 2013¡¼Damages, Shipping Cost, etc., Shipping Cost, etc.¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] Where a bank issuing documentary credit wrote conditions that differ from Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) or International Standard Banking Practice for the Examination of Documents (ISBP) on the credit, yet its objective meaning or purpose is unspecific or ambiguous to the extent it can be interpreted that the required conditions are not different from the UCP or ISBP, whether the issuing bank can deny payment of the documentary credit price on the ground that the conditions do not agree with its intentions (negative) [2] Where a documentary credit condition requires a bill of lading as shipping document, the means to determine whether the bill satisfies conditions provided by Article 20(a)i of the UCP 600 (Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 2007 Revision, ICC Publication no. 600) and Article 94 of the ISBP, and where the name indicating the carrier itself is written on the bill and the bill is signed by the agent, but its text does not explicitly indicate that the status of the carrier itself is carrier, whether the bill formally and strictly satisfies the signing conditions provided by the above provisions (negative) [3] Where a carrier issues a bill of lading in accordance with a shipping agreement with the consignor/beneficiary, the person who is responsible for inspecting whether the signature portion coincides with the UCP and ISBP, and take measures such as request for correction

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2011Da110685 Decided October 24, 2013¡¼Confirmation of Membership Qualification¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9616 Decided October 11, 2013¡¼Fraud¡½