지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This study, especially, focuses mainly on article 14 of the UCP500.
Article 14 stipulates the obligation to notify by banks in the case of rejection of the documents presented.
That is, Sub-article 14 (d) says that (i) If the Issuing Bank … decides to refuse the documents, it must give notice to that effect by telecommunication or, if that is not possible, by other expeditious means, without delay but no later than the close of the seventh banking day following the day of receipt of the documents …. (ii) Such notice must state all discrepancies in repect of which the bank refuses the documents and must also state whether it is holding the documents at the disposal of, or is returning them to, the presenter.
First, therefore Bank which decides to refuse the documents must without delay deliver that intent. If not, Bank is deprived of right to insist that documents presented do not comply.
But Many banks usually only give notice to the fact that documents presented do not comply or they negotiate with applican for a waiver of the discrepancies. This notice does not become to the good notice that article 14 demands the banks to give. So. banks must contain in the notice intent of refusal. that is, containing clause to the effect that we reject to accept your documents is free from disputes.
Second, such notice state all discrepancies and state the discrepancies as specifically as possible.
Some banks which use stationery(or form) printed for refusal notice simply state a few discrepancies among all discrepancies finded. but, this notice does not enough.
The reason that UCP500 requires banks to give notice without delay is to afford representing the documents cured to beneficiary. So, if the above notice constitutes the good notice, beneficiary does not know what the discrepancies to correct is, Hence, opportunity to cure is decrease.
Therefore, banks state all discrepancies as specifically as possible.
Article 14 stipulates the obligation to notify by banks in the case of rejection of the documents presented.
That is, Sub-article 14 (d) says that (i) If the Issuing Bank … decides to refuse the documents, it must give notice to that effect by telecommunication or, if that is not possible, by other expeditious means, without delay but no later than the close of the seventh banking day following the day of receipt of the documents …. (ii) Such notice must state all discrepancies in repect of which the bank refuses the documents and must also state whether it is holding the documents at the disposal of, or is returning them to, the presenter.
First, therefore Bank which decides to refuse the documents must without delay deliver that intent. If not, Bank is deprived of right to insist that documents presented do not comply.
But Many banks usually only give notice to the fact that documents presented do not comply or they negotiate with applican for a waiver of the discrepancies. This notice does not become to the good notice that article 14 demands the banks to give. So. banks must contain in the notice intent of refusal. that is, containing clause to the effect that we reject to accept your documents is free from disputes.
Second, such notice state all discrepancies and state the discrepancies as specifically as possible.
Some banks which use stationery(or form) printed for refusal notice simply state a few discrepancies among all discrepancies finded. but, this notice does not enough.
The reason that UCP500 requires banks to give notice without delay is to afford representing the documents cured to beneficiary. So, if the above notice constitutes the good notice, beneficiary does not know what the discrepancies to correct is, Hence, opportunity to cure is decrease.
Therefore, banks state all discrepancies as specifically as possible.
목차
Abstract
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 하자통지의 구체성 정도
Ⅲ. 하자통지의 적시성 기산시점
Ⅳ. 하자통지의 유효기간
Ⅴ. 하자의 治癒可能性과 하자통지의무와의 관계
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
참고문헌 (9)
참고문헌 신청
, 2000 , 신용장의 독립추상성과 비서류적 조건의 유효성
, 1996 , 신법률학사전
, 1996 , Brooke Wunnicke, Diane B. Wunnicke & Paul S. Turner, Standby and Commercial Letters of Credit, 2nd ed
, 1999년 , UCP500 before the English Courts 14 (1)
, 1999 , The Internatinal Standby Practices(ISP98) New Rules for Standby Letters of Credit 32
, 1996 , 신법률학사전
, 1996 , Brooke Wunnicke, Diane B. Wunnicke & Paul S. Turner, Standby and Commercial Letters of Credit, 2nd ed
, 1999년 , UCP500 before the English Courts 14 (1)
, 1999 , The Internatinal Standby Practices(ISP98) New Rules for Standby Letters of Credit 32
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
UCP 600 상의 불일치서류의 권리포기 요건과 적용에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2007 .04
-
UCP 600에서의 은행의 서류심사 및 불일치 서류에 대한 은행의 대응에 관한 연구
무역연구
2012 .01
-
UCP 600 서류심사기준의 문제점과 실무상 유의점
무역상무연구
2007 .02
-
신용장거래에 있어서 개설의뢰인의 서류심사 및 통지의무
통상정보연구
2006 .12
-
UCP 600의 14조 서류심사에 관한 연구
경영경제
2008 .02
-
신용장거래에서 매입은행의 법률적 특성에 관한 분석 : UCP 600을 중심으로
무역학회지
2011 .08
-
신용장거래에서 개설은행과 매입은행의 주의의무와 준거법 –대법원 2011. 1. 27. 선고 2009다10249판결의 평석을 중심으로-
중재연구
2012 .01
-
UCP 600의 실무상의 문제점에 관한 한･미간 비교연구
무역연구
2012 .01
-
UCP 500과 UCP 600에서 서류심사 규정의 차이에 관한 연구 : 판례중심으로
한국사회과학연구
2009 .06
-
은행의 운송서류매입에 대한 대법원판례 연구
무역학회지
2004 .04
-
지정은행과 개설은행간의 UCP 600의 문제점에 대한 연구
무역학회지
2011 .08
-
신용장거래에서 거절통지의 형식적 요건에 관한연구
무역연구
2013 .01
-
신용장관련서류제시와 검사에 관한 연구
동아법학
2005 .12
-
양도은행의 양도오류에 관한 연구 : 중국법원의 판례를 중심으로
무역학회지
2006 .04
-
신용장거래에서 불일치서류의 거절통지에 관한 연구
산업경제연구
2009 .04
-
Effects of Korean Bank M&As under the IMF Supervision System : Efficiency, Management and Profitability Index Approach
한국무역학회 국제학술대회
2000 .12
-
World Bank
[KIEP] 월간 KIEP 세계경제
2004 .11
-
신용장통일규칙 양도조항의 해석과 운용에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2004 .12
-
An Evaluation of Korean Banks by UBSS Method
한국무역학회 국제학술대회
2001 .10
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-326-002827118