수출신용보증(선적후)약관의 법리적 해석에 관한 연구

The Lower Court held that the bank has a duty of care before and after the fact, while the Supreme Court held that the lending bank had a duty of care after the fact. This study analyzes the jurisprudence of the lower courts and the Supreme Court, and examines the problems of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence at the junction of the proactive and reactive duty of care. The results of this study are as follows. First, the liability of the lending bank, and the jurisprudence of Article 7(2). Second, the problem was the interpretation of the enemy, the legal interpretation of Article 2. Third, the collateral for trade fraudulent transactions, and the business practices of banks. The solution to trade fraud was presented as the obligation of the lending bank to examine the trade documents in writing, the obligation to submit the original bill of lading for purchase in the case of OA transactions, and the obligation to verify exports through the Korea Customs Service UNI-PASS import and export customs clearance system.