보증신용장의 비서류적조건이 수출보증보험자에게 미치는 영향에 관한 연구

Purpose – This research analyzes the Supreme Court’s legal interpretation of the non-documentary terms of letters applying UCP 600, which was not addressed in previous studies, to identity problems with legal interpretation, and to identify the impact of legal interpretation on export guarantee insurers, thereby deriving countermeasures. Design/Methodology/Approach – This research analyzes Korean Supreme Court 2021DA215909. Findings – The Supreme Court made an erroneous legal interpretation based on Article 14(h) of UCP 600, stating that it was not a legitimate claim for payment. The provision that it applies to any standby letter of credit within the scope of Article 1 of UCP 600 can only be applied when the documents to be presented in the standby letter of credit are specified. Therefore, a standby letter of credit that does not specify the documents to be presented should be regarded not as a letter of credit, but as an independent bank guarantee. Research Implications – In a standby letter of credit wherein the documents to be presented are not specified, the insurance incident of the export guarantee insurance policy constitutes a claim for payment by the beneficiary, and if the beneficiary requests to extend the expiry or to pay for payment, the issuing bank must pay the amount of the standby letter of credit. Therefore, the export guarantee insurer may face the risk of being unable to refuse payment of the insurance benefit if it pays the insurance in accordance with the beneficiary’s claim and fails to prove that the beneficiary’s claim for payment constituted an abuse of rights or a breach of good faith.