Decisions

All

TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93817 Decided Jan. 27, 2012 [Amount of the Letter of Credit] [full Text]
Summary
[1] Whether the advice of issuance of the letter of credit(""credit"") without delivering the original letter of credit or the credit negotiation without being presented with the original letter of credit is lawful and valid (affirmative) [2] The meaning of ""negotiation"" under Article 2 of the 6th Revision Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (""UCP 600"") [3] The case affirmed the judgment below holding that Gap bank paid at sight, in case where Gap bank deposited negotiation amount into Eul Corp.'s special account upon its credit negotiation request, and they agreed that two previously rejected credit negotiation payments were set off when the credit amount is paid to Gap bank, and Eul Corp. will withdraw its remainder [4] In case where the negotiating bank is the party to forgery or knew documents forgery beforehand or sufficient grounds exist for suspicion of forgery, whether the bank can be protected by the independence and abstractness principle of the credit (negative)

TITLE

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93817 Decided Jan. 27, 2012 [Amount of the Letter of Credit] [full Text]

Summary

[1] Whether the advice of issuance of the letter of credit(""credit"") without delivering the original letter of credit or the credit negotiation without being presented with the original letter of credit is lawful and valid (affirmative) [2] The meaning of ""negotiation"" under Article 2 of the 6th Revision Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (""UCP 600"") [3] The case affirmed the judgment below holding that Gap bank paid at sight, in case where Gap bank deposited negotiation amount into Eul Corp.'s special account upon its credit negotiation request, and they agreed that two previously rejected credit negotiation payments were set off when the credit amount is paid to Gap bank, and Eul Corp. will withdraw its remainder [4] In case where the negotiating bank is the party to forgery or knew documents forgery beforehand or sufficient grounds exist for suspicion of forgery, whether the bank can be protected by the independence and abstractness principle of the credit (negative)

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14676 Decided January 27, 2012[Injury from Compulsive Indecent Act]
Next	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Hu2234 Decided January 19, 2012【Invalidation of Registration (Patent)】

list