Letter of Credit Dispute Between CNK Trading Corporation Korea and China Everbright Bank

韩国CNK交易株式会社诉中国光大银行信用证纠纷案

Letter of Credit Dispute Between CNK Trading Corporation Korea and China Everbright Bank

No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality

First Instance Judgment of the Economic Tribunal No. 1336 (1998)

Plaintiff: CNK Trading Corporation of 2nd Floor Insung Building，113－2，Hannan－Dong， Yongsan－Ku，Seoul，Korba

Legal Representative: Cui Guangzhi, representing the directors.

Authorised attorney: Jing Chenglin, Liaoning People's Law Office, Dalian Sub-office.

Authorised attorney: Jin Tao, Liaoning People's Law Office, Dalian Sub-office.

Defendant: China Everbright Bank of Everbright Mansions, 6 Fuxingmenwai Avenue, Beijing

Legal Representative: Tang Gengyao, President.

Authorised attorney: Chen Yan, Section Chief of China Everbright Bank

Authorised attorney: Huang Zhangren, Employee of China Everbright Bank

After accepting the case in relation to the credit dispute between the Plaintiff CNK Trading Corporation (hereafter referred to as CNK Korea) and the Defendant China Everbright Bank (hereafter referred to as Everbright Bank), this Court convened a full bench in accordance with the law and held an open session of court to conduct a hearing of the case. The Plaintiff CNK Korea's legal representative Cui Guangzhi and authorised attorneys Jing Chenglin and Jin Tao and the Defendant Everbright Bank's authorised attorneys Chen Yan and Huang Zhangren all took part in the litigation. The hearing for this case has been concluded.

The Plaintiff CNK Korea stated that: on April 20 1998, the Defendant Everbright Bank drew up irrevocable documentary letter of credit No. EBH98LC0057S in accordance with the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500, hereafter referred to as UCP500) with our party as the beneficiary. The letter of credit specified the following: 500 tonnes of Alaskan cod; 2/3 clean on board ocean bill of lading originals and 3 duplicate copies of a non-negotiable bill of lading; 1/3 original bill of lading and other documentation to be mailed to Mr Wang Baoguo of the Dalian Haifeng Aquatic Products Company Ltd. Subsequently through the buyer we requested amendment of the quantity to 1000 tonnes. On April 23 the Defendant Everbright Bank amended the aforementioned letter of credit and changed the product description to green cod. We did not make any comment on this. However, on the basis of the amended letter of credit, the Defendant Evergreen Bank issued a notice of refusal to pay for goods due to “discrepancies”. According to the provisions of UCP500, as we did not make any comment on the amended letter of credit and the documentation supplied by us indicated that we only partly accepted the amendments, and moreover this acceptance should be considered invalid, therefore the amended letter of credit is only binding on the Defendant Evergreen Bank and is not binding on us. Thus, the Defendant Evergreen Bank's use of “discrepancies” in the documentation supplied by us as the reason for refusing to pay is not tenable.

In relation to the second batch of goods we delivered, the Defendant Evergreen Bank exceeded the allowable time limit in examining the relevant documentation and as such has no right to declare that the documentation did not conform to the specifications of the letter of credit. After negotiating with the negotiating bank Donghua Bank of Korea (hereafter referred to as Donghua Bank), Donghua Bank were unable to retrieve the letter of credit funds from the Defendant Evergreen Bank. As a result, Donghua Bank authorised us to recover the amount due from the Defendant Evergreen Bank. The actions of the Defendant Evergreen Bank have also caused us to suffer financial loss. We request the court to order the Defendant Evergreen Bank to pay the principal of USD346,618.74 owed to us, to compensate us for our direct losses (including interest and exchange losses up until August 20 1999) totalling USD188,649.69, as well as interest and exchange losses from August 21 1999 up until the date at which the amount owed is paid in full, and to bear the litigation costs for this case (including interpreting fees and travel expenses), a total of USD17,506.22.

The Defendant Evergreen Bank responded that:

(1) amendment of the letter of credit referred to in this case was invalid, thus we should not bear any liability. Firstly, in accordance with the accredited buyer's application, on April 21 1998 we drew up an irrevocable letter of credit to the amount of USD163,867.00 with the Plaintiff CNK Korea as the beneficiary. On August 23, once again in accordance with the accredited buyer's request, we amended some of the clauses of the original letter of credit and notified the Plaintiff CNK Korea in a timely fashion. The Plaintiff CNK Korea did not give any indication of refusal or acceptance. The Plaintiff CNK Korea also acknowledged that they only partially fulfilled their obligation to deliver goods in accordance with the amended letter of credit. Paragraph d of Article 9 of UPC500 stipulates: “Prior to the beneficiary informing the bank which has given notification of amendments that they accept the amendments, the terms of the original letter of credit (or a letter of credit that incorporates previously accepted amendments) are still valid in relation to the beneficiary. The beneficiary should give notice of their rejection or acceptance of the amendments, …… partial acceptance of amendments in the same notice of amendments is not permitted. Therefore, partial acceptance of amendments is invalid.” Thus the amendments to the letter of credit referred to in this case are invalid. We should only fulfil our obligations to the Plaintiff CNK Korea in accordance with the original letter of credit.

The second batch of documents held by the Plaintiff CNK Korea are completely outside the amount stipulated in the original letter of credit and are not related in any way to the original letter of credit drawn up by us. Therefore, we should not have to bear any liability or obligation for the second batch of documents held by the Plaintiff CNK Korea. In addition, the Plaintiff CNK Korea's excuse that our refusal to pay in relation to the second batch of documents exceeded the stipulated time limit is not tenable. We received the documents on May 29, 1998. Because the accredited buyer, the Zhonghua International Chemical Company, only replied to us on June 8 and June 9, in accordance with the requirement of 7 working days and within the stipulated time limit, we immediately gave our reply of refusal to pay. Our reply was timely and reasonable and not incorrect in any way.

Secondly, the following ostensible discrepancies exist when the second batch of documents delivered by the Plaintiff CNK Korea are compared with the stipulations of the original letter of credit:

(i) the original letter of credit stipulated that the beneficiary shall provide 2 / 3 originals of the bill of lading and 3 duplicates of the bill of lading, whereas the Plaintiff CNK Korea only provided 2 / 3 originals of the bill of lading and 2 duplicates of the bill of lading;

(ii) the original letter of credit stipulated that the value of goods was to be UDS163,875.00, however, the value of goods for the first batch of documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea was USD180,786.99. Even allowing for 5% over or short shipment, the stipulated amount was still exceeded by USD8,718.24;

(iii) the unit price for the goods stipulated by the original letter of credit was USD345.00 per tonne, whereas the unit price in the first batch of documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea was USD330.00 or USD430.00 per tonne.

In accordance with the inspection principle of ostensible compliance stipulated in UCP500, we reasonably refused payment of the first batch of documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea and subsequent to this refusal, should not bear liability of any kind;

(2) Because the Plaintiff CNK Korea should themselves be liable for any losses as a result of delivery of the goods being taken, their demand for compensation for losses has no basis in law or in fact. In accordance with the specifications of the letter of credit, we are only responsible for accepting 2 / 3 sets of the bill of lading originals. The documents we accepted are still deposited with us for safekeeping – they were not passed on to the accredited buyer to be used to take delivery of the goods. The reason that the actual user of the goods was able to take delivery of the goods was because the Plaintiff CNK Korea passed the 1 / 3 documents on to them. The Plaintiff CNK Korea should take responsibility themselves for the consequences. On 26 July 1998, the Plaintiff CNK Korea signed an agreement with the actual user of the goods and in accordance with that agreement retrieved the goods. Therefore, the Plaintiff CNK Korea did not suffer any losses and it is only because they did not take timely action that they face the current situation. We should not bear liability for this;

(3) the laws of China should apply to this case. UCP500 is an international convention used for reference and, unless the concerned parties have a separate agreement, does not have precedence over the laws and regulations of China. It is stipulated in Chinese law that the principle for the determination of losses is that losses shall be limited to that which can be foreseen by one or other of the concerned parties at the time of entering into a contract. In the context of a letter of credit, the scope of foreseeable losses is limited to losses associated with the cost of goods purchased. Interest and exchange losses raised by the Plaintiff CNK Korea have no basis in law;

(4) the Plaintiff CNK Korea supplied the agreement between themselves and the actual user of the goods, but did not supply the relevant trade agreement and contract with the accredited buyer. Moreover, the action on the part of the accredited buyer to establish a letter of credit on behalf of the Plaintiff CNK Korea violates the provisions of the laws of China and does not possess trade authenticity.

In summary, the Defendant Evergreen Bank requests that the court reject the request by the Plaintiff CNK Korea to carry out litigation.

In response to the Defendant Evergreen Bank's defence, the Plaintiff CNK Korea made the additional statement that :

(1) There are no ostensible discrepancies between the documents provided by ourselves and the specifications of the letter of credit. After the original letter of credit was amended and we were notified of this fact, prior to presenting the documents we did not indicate acceptance. Moreover, the documents we submitted were consistent with the description of the goods stipulated by the original letter of credit. In accordance with the provisions of UCP500, our actions indicated that as the beneficiary we did not accept the notice of amendment to the letter of credit and that the original letter of credit continued to be valid for us, while the Defendant Evergreen Bank was already bound by the amended letter of credit. Therefore, there is no foundation for the Defendant Evergreen Bank, on the basis of a letter of credit that was not binding on us but only binding on themselves, submitting that there were discrepancies. Of course the Defendant Evergreen Bank now has no right to raise other discrepancies. Examination of the second batch of documents by the Defendant Evergreen Bank exceeded the time limit, so in accordance with the provisions of UCP500 they also have no right to submit that the documents do not conform to the provisions of the letter of credit.

(2) In accordance with the provisions of UCP500, a letter of credit and a contract are mutually independent transactions. The bank handles documents and not sales contracts, thus the agreement between ourselves and the actual user of the goods supplied by the Defendant Evergreen Bank is irrelevant to this case.

The facts in relation to the evidence and proof involved in this case ascertained by the hearing court are as follows:

I. Irrevocable documentary letter of credit No. EBH98LC0057S

On April 20 1998, after application was made by the Zhonghua International Chemical Company, the Defendant Evergreen Bank established the abovementioned letter of credit. The beneficiary was the Plaintiff CNK Korea. The drawee was the Defendant Evergreen Bank. The amount of the letter of credit was USD163,875.00 and could vary by plus or minus 0.5%. Bill of exchange: 95% of the invoice amount at sight. The specifications for the 500 tonnes of Alaskan Green Cod were: 85% at 22 – 30cm long (from the mouth to the tail) and 35% at 30cm long (from the mouth to the tail). The price per tonne was CFR Dalian USD345.00, the total value USD163,875.00 plus or minus 0.5%. No split shipments or transhipment were allowed and the latest date for shipment was May 15 1998. The documents required were: 2 originals and 3 duplicates of a hand signed invoice clearly indicating the letter of credit number; 2 / 3 sets of clean onboard ocean bill of lading originals and 3 duplicates of a non-negotiable bill of lading; proof that documents such as 18 sets of bill of lading originals and 1 invoice duplicate have been sent to Mr Wang Baoguo of the Dalian Haifeng Aquatic Product Company within 1 working day of shipment.

II. Notice of Amendment of the Letter of Credit

On April 23 1998, the Zhonghua International Chemical Company notified the Defendant Evergreen Bank to make the following amendments to the letter of credit, and the Defendant Evergreen Bank notified the Plaintiff CNK Korea of said amendments on the same day that:

(1) the amount to be increased by USD163,875.00, making the new amount USD327,750.00;

(2) “500 tonnes” to be changed to “1000 tonnes (plus or minus 5% allowable) net weight”;

(3) “Alaskan Green Cod” to be changed to “Green Cod”;

(4) unit price to be changed to: 22 – 30cm USD330.00 per tonne, greater than 30cm USD430.00 per tonne;

(5) split shipments permitted;

(6) item No. 3 of the required documents “Manufacturer” to be deleted.

Other terms to remain unchanged.

The Plaintiff CNK Korea and the Defendant Evergreen Bank are unanimous in their agreement about the written content of the abovementioned letter of credit and the notice of amendment to the letter of credit.

III. Tendering of Documents

The Plaintiff CNK Korea delivered the 1000 tonnes of goods in two batches:

(1) Bill of lading No. 98022 and invoice No. CNK80501 (i.e. the first batch of documents being disputed by the Plaintiff). On May 9 1998, the ship-owner KIST signed and issued bill of lading No.98022 with the shipper being the Plaintiff CNK Korea and the cargo being 555.370 tonnes of Alaskan Green Cod. The bill of lading consisted of 3 originals. On the same day, the Plaintiff CNK Korea issued an invoice, number CNK80501. The seller was the Plaintiff CNK Korea. Other terms included: Alaskan Green Cod, 22 – 30cm in length (from mouth to tail), 25,530 trays, 485.07 tonnes at USD330.00 per tonne, total value USD160,073.10; Alaskan Green Cod, greater than 30cm in length (from mouth to tail), 3,700 trays, 70.30 tonnes at USD430.00 per tonne, total value USD30,229. The totals for all of the above are 29,230 trays, 555.37 tonnes, total value USD190,302.10. 95% of the total value of the invoice was USD180,786.

(2) Bill of lading No.98025 and commercial invoice No. 80505-1 (i.e. the second batch of documents disputed by the Plaintiff). On May 15 1998, the ship-owner KIST signed and issued bill of lading No.98025 with the shipper being the Plaintiff CNK Korea and the cargo being 465.595 tonnes of Alaskan Green Cod. The bill of lading consisted of 3 originals. On May 23 1998 the Plaintiff CNK Korea issued a commercial invoice No. CNK80505-1 with the seller being the Plaintiff CNK Korea. Other terms included: Alaskan Green Cod, 22 – 30cm in length (from mouth to tail), 15,160 trays, 288.04 tonnes at USD330.00 per tonne, total value USD95,053.20; Alaskan Green Cod, greater than 30cm in length (from mouth to tail), 9345 trays, 177.555 tonnes at USD430.00 per tonne, total value USD76,348.65. The totals for all of the above are 24,505 trays, 465.595 tonnes, total value USD171,401.85. 95% of the total value of the invoice was USD162,831.75.

The Plaintiff CNK Korea and the Defendant Evergreen Bank are unanimous in their agreement about the written content of the abovementioned bill of lading and commercial invoice.

The abovementioned documents indicate that the Plaintiff CNK Korea only accepted a part of the content of the notification of amendment to the letter of credit issued by the Defendant Evergreen Bank. The content that was accepted was quantity, unit price, and method of shipment. The content that was not accepted was the description of the goods.

IV. Mailing Documents And Claiming Reimbursement

(1) The first batch of documents

On May 11 1998, the Donghua Bank notified the Defendant Evergreen Bank that a net amount of USD180,786.99 should be paid immediately. The documents sent to the issuing bank included: bill of exchange (2 copies), commercial invoice (2 original + 3 duplicates), bill of lading (2 / 3 sets of originals + 2 duplicates).

(2) The second batch of documents delivered

1. On May 26 1998, the Donghua Bank passed the second batch of documents to DHL for delivery to the Defendant Evergreen Bank, document No.9510898165.

2. On May 28 1998, DHL delivered the correspondence to the Defendant Evergreen Bank. The correspondence was received and signed for by an employee of the bank, Li Qian, document No.951089.

3. On the same day, Song Jinping of the international business department of the Defendant Evergreen Bank signed for the mail on the bank's correspondence register, document No.95108981.

The Defendant Evergreen Bank denies that there is a person called Li Qian, but confirms that Song Jinping is an employee in the international business department of the bank.

V. Refusal to Pay Letter of Credit

(1) On May 25 1998, the Defendant Evergreen Bank notified the Donghua Bank that because of the following discrepancies they were refusing to accept the first batch of documentation relating to the payment for goods of USD180,786.99:

(i) the description of goods on the documents was “Alaskan Green Cod”, not “Green Cod” as on the letter of credit;

(ii) only 2 copies of the duplicate bill of lading were provided, no 3 copies as per the letter of credit.

(2) On June 9 1998, the Defendant Evergreen Bank notified the Donghua Bank that due to the following discrepancies they were refusing to accept the second batch of documentation relating to the payment for goods of USD162,831.75:

(i) the name of the goods was Alaskan Cod, not Green Cod as on the letter of credit;

(ii) the proportions of the goods was not in compliance with the requirements of the letter of credit;

(iii) 1 / 3 sets of bill of lading originals, 1 original invoice, 1 original bill of health (immunity) and 1 original packing list were not sent to the applicant within 1 working day of shipment.

VI. Losses Suffered by the Plaintiff CNK Korea

(1) Because the Defendant Evergreen Bank was bought by the Korea Development Bank of Korea (hereafter referred to as Korea Development Bank), on August 20 1998 the Korea Development Bank issued a letter of confirmation that the Plaintiff CNK Korea had already negotiated with the Defendant Evergreen Bank for the total amount of USD343,618.74 under letter of credit No.EBH98LC0057S on May 11 and 25 1998 respectively. Because the Korea Development Bank was unable to collect the abovementioned letter of credit amount from the Defendant Evergreen Bank, they collected the abovementioned unpaid principle and interest from the Plaintiff CNK Korea. On May 11 1998 the exchange rate between the USD and the Korean Won was 1:1392.00. The principle of the amount payable for the first batch of goods of USD190,786 converts to Won251,655,490.00 and the principle of the amount payable for the second batch of goods of USD163,831.75 converts to Won224,707,815.00.

(2) The Korea Development Bank confirms that the ordinary Korean Won loan annual interest rate given to the Plaintiff CNK Korea was 21% and the interest rate on outstanding amounts was 27% per annum. On August 20 1998 the USD to the Korean Won exchange rate was 1:1,277.70.

(3) The Korea Development Bank confirms that up to August 20 1998, the outstanding interest on the principle of the payable for the first batch of goods was Won 18,987,923.00. The outstanding interest on the principle of the amount payable for the second batch of goods was Won 14,627,555.00

(4) Up until August 20 1998, the total of the abovementioned outstanding principle and interest was USD399, 138.12.

VII. The Plaintiff CNK Korea's Eligibility to Conduct Litigation

The letter of credit with which this case is concerned was negotiated by the Donghua Bank. The Plaintiff CNK Korea submitted a Letter of Confirmation Regarding the Transfer of Litigant Rights issued by the Donghua Bank and with notarial certification from the relevant authorities in which the Donghua Bank declared that it had transferred all litigant rights in relation to the letter of credit to the beneficiary of the letter of credit, the Plaintiff CNK Korea. In the process of hearing this case, the Donghua Bank once again issued certification that all rights, interests and title associated with the letter of credit had been transferred to the Plaintiff CNK Korea.

The letter of confirmation of the transfer of litigant rights from the Donghua Bank, the rate of exchange, and the letter of confirmation regarding interest and losses have already been notarised by the relevant Korean notary body and have been authenticated by the Chinese embassy in Korea, and have an evidentiary effect.

The abovementioned facts are corroborated by the letter of credit, the notification of amendment of the letter of credit, the bills of lading, the commercial invoices, faxes, letters of confirmation, statements from parties to the case who have appeared in court and other evidence, all of which are on record.

1. Paragraph d, Item I of Article 9 of UCP500 stipulates: “Except where Article 48 stipulates otherwise, where agreement has not been obtained from the issuing bank, the confirming bank (if applicable) and the beneficiary, an irrevocable letter of credit cannot be amended and cannot be cancelled.” The letter of credit associated with this case is an irrevocable documentary letter of credit, thus, once application was made by the accredited buyer and the letter of credit was established by the Defendant Evergreen Bank, it became immediately binding on the Plaintiff.

2. Paragraph d, Item II of Article 9 of UCP500 stipulates: “From the time that amendments to a letter of credit are issued, the issuing bank is irrevocably bound by the amendments it issues.” Therefore, from the time that the Defendant Evergreen Bank issued a notice of amendment to the letter of credit to the Plaintiff CNK Korea on April 23 1998, the Defendant was immediately bound by the notice of amendment it issued.

3. Paragraph d, Item III of Article 9 of UCP500 stipulates: “Prior to a beneficiary indicating acceptance of amendments to the bank giving notification of amendments, the terms of the original letter of credit (or the letter of credit that has been previously amended) are still in force in relation to the beneficiary. The beneficiary should issue a notice of acceptance or rejection of the amendments. If the beneficiary does not provide the aforementioned notice, when the documents the beneficiary submits to the designated bank or issuing bank and the letter of credit as well as the notice of amendment which for which acceptance has not been indicated are mutually consistent, the letter of credit is, from this time on, amended”. Item IV of the same Article stipulates: “Partial acceptance of the amended content of the same notice of amendment is not permitted. Therefore, partial acceptance of amended content is not valid.” The Plaintiff CNK Korea did not indicate acceptance or refusal after being notified of amendments to the letter of credit by the Defendant Evergreen Bank, and a portion of the terms of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea were in conformance with the terms of the letter of credit prior to amendment, while a portion were in conformance with the terms of the notice of amendment. That is to say that the documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea indicated that they had only partially accepted the amended content, thus violating the abovementioned stipulations of the UCP500. Therefore, the amended letter of credit was invalid and the Plaintiff CNK Korea and the Defendant Evergreen Bank were both still bound by the original letter of credit.

4. There were discrepancies between the letter of credit and the documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea both prior to and subsequent to amendment. However, the Defendant Evergreen Bank refused payment because of the existence of discrepancies between the documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea and the letter of credit which was invalid, that is to say, its standard for the examination of the documents and the basis for refusing payment were incorrect, thus, their reason for refusal to pay in relation to the first batch of documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea is not tenable.

5. Paragraph b of Article 13 stipulates: “The issuing bank, the confirming bank (if applicable) or a designated bank conducting affairs on their behalf shall each set their own reasonable timeframe, which must not exceed 7 bank working days from the day after the receipt of documents, to examine and verify documents for the purpose of deciding whether to accept or reject the documents, and to correspondingly notify the party that has sent the documents of their decision.” Paragraph d, Item I of Article 14 stipulates: “If the issuing bank and regional confirming bank (if applicable) or a designated bank conducting affairs on their behalf decides to reject documentation, they must give notification of their decision without delay via telecommunications, or if this is not possible, via other rapid means, but such notification must not be later than 7 bank working days from the day after receiving such documentation. The notice shall be issued to the bank that has sent the documents or if the documents have been received directly from the beneficiary, the beneficiary shall be notified.” According to cross-examination during the court hearing, the Defendant Evergreen Bank acknowledged that a staff member of its international business department received the second batch of documents May 28 1998 and that the bank notified the negotiating bank of its refusal to pay on June 9. The period between May 29 and June 9 constituted a total of 12 days, of which 4 days were public holidays. After deducting the 4 days of public holidays, the amount of time taken by the Defendant Evergreen Bank to examine and verify the documents was in fact 8 days. Moreover, the Defendant's reason for and basis of refusal to pay on June 9, 1998 was still the notice of amendment to the letter of credit. Therefore, as the Defendant Evergreen Bank's argument that the amount of the second batch of documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea was in excess of the stipulated amount of the original letter of credit, that it bore no relation to the original letter of credit, and that they therefore should not bear any liability differs from the reason given for the refusal to pay at the time, thus the court shall not take this argument into consideration. Because the Defendant Evergreen Bank exceeded the stipulated time limit for examining the documents they had no right to announce their refusal to pay based on the second batch of documents submitted by the Plaintiff CNK Korea. The Defendant's act on June 9 1998 of refusing payment is invalid as its basis was incorrect.

6. Based on Article 4 of UCP500 which stipulates that “In the course of conducting credit operations, each of the relevant parties only handles documents and not the goods, services or other activities associated with those documents”, the Defendant Evergreen Bank's argument that the Plaintiff CNK Korea signed an agreement with the actual user of the goods and retrieved the goods and that losses occurred due to reasons on the Plaintiff CNK Korea's part, thus making them (the Defendant) not liable, is not tenable.

7. In accordance with General Principals of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the legal application of foreign civil relations should be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the laws of China. Where there are no provisions in the laws of China or in the international treaties to which China is a party, international convention may be applied. UCP500 stipulates that the rights and obligations of each of the parties in a credit relationship are a part of a unified convention in relation to credit operations. Therefore, this court believes that international convention should be applied to the determination of any dispute and the associated liability triggered off by matters relating to a letter of credit. However, as UCP500 contains no relevant provisions, therefore, the laws of the People's Republic of China should be applied to the apportionment of liability to the Defendant and the Plaintiff. The Defendant Evergreen Bank's argument in relation to the application of China's laws to this case has no legal basis and this court will not support it.

8. Because Donghua Bank has issued a letter of confirmation that all credit rights in relation to this case have been transferred to the Plaintiff CNK Korea, this court grants recognition to the Plaintiff CNK Korea's eligibility to conduct litigation.

9. In relation to the Plaintiff CNK Korea's request for litigation:

(1) Because the Defendant Evergreen Bank's refusal to pay is invalid, it shall pay the outstanding amount from the letter of credit of USD343,618.74 to the Plaintiff CNK Korea.

(2) The Defendant Evergreen Bank shall compensate the Plaintiff CNK Korea for direct losses incurred in the period from the date of refusal to pay to the date of full payment of the outstanding monies, including interest on interest and exchange losses. The letter of confirmation issued by Korea Development Bank confirms that the cut-off date for the calculation of losses is August 20 1998. Therefore, the basis of calculating the interest and exchange losses up to this cut-off date shall be the relevant data in the letter of confirmation. In the light of the special circumstances of this case, this court believes that amount of compensation for interest and exchange losses incurred by the Plaintiff CNK Korea from August 21 1998 to the date on which outstanding monies are fully paid can be calculated with reference to China's relevant regulations.

(3) The Plaintiff CNK Korea requests that the Defendant Evergreen Bank bears all litigation costs associated with this case, including the court acceptance fee, the travel expenses of the Plaintiff CNK Korea's legal representative, Cui Guangzhi, and lawyer of USD5,440.00, and costs of USD1050.00 for the translation of litigation material, a total of USD17,506.22. According to the relevant regulations of the Supreme People's Court, the travel costs of the parties to a dispute are not included in litigation costs and the Plaintiff CNK Korea has not provided corresponding evidence proving the amount of translation costs. Therefore, this court does not support the Plaintiff CNK Korea's request that the Defendant Evergreen Bank bears its travel and translation costs.

In summary, in accordance with Article 142 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of General Principals of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 23 of Foreign Economic Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 9 Paragraph d, Article 13 Paragraphs a and b, Article 14 Paragraphs c and d Item I of Unified Convention on Documentary Letters of Credit (UCP500), and Article 6 and the relevant provisions of the Supreme People's Court's Answers to A Number of Questions Regarding the Application of Foreign Economic Contract Law, the court's ruling is as follows:

I. The Defendant Evergreen Bank shall pay the Plaintiff CNK Trading Corporation Korea the outstanding amount of USD343,618 (a lump-sum payment to be made within 10 days of this ruling coming into effect).

II. The Defendant Evergreen Bank shall compensate the Plaintiff CNK Trading Corporation Korea for interest and exchange losses on the principal of the abovementioned outstanding amount (of this amount, USD180,786.00 shall be calculated from May 5 1998 and USD162,831.75 shall be calculated from June 9 1998 up to August 2 1998. The exchange rate between USD and the Korean Won shall be calculated at 1:1,277.70. Interest on the Korean Won shall be calculated on the basis of an annual interest rate of 27%. Interest and exchange losses for the period from August 21 1998 to the date on which full payment of the outstanding amount is paid shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Legal Interpretation No.8 (1999) of the Supreme People's Court. These amounts shall be paid within 10 days of this ruling coming into effect).

III. Other claims by the Plaintiff CNK Trading Corporation Korea are overruled.

The court acceptance fee of RMB31,550.00 (already paid by the Plaintiff) shall be borne by the Defendant Evergreen Bank (to be paid to this court within 7 days of this ruling coming into effect).

If there is dissatisfaction with this ruling, a petition for appeal (plus duplicate) may submitted to this court by the Plaintiff CNK Trading Corporation Korea within 30 days of the delivery of the written judgement and by the Defendant Evergreen Bank within 15 days of the delivery of the written judgement, and payment made of the court acceptance fee for the hearing of an appeal of RMB31,550.00 (Bank: The Industrial and Commercial Bank Beijing Branch, Shijingshan Sub-branch, Huanglou Sub-office; Account name: Beijing No.1 People's Intermediate Court; Account number: 144537-09) and an appeal made to the Beijing People's High Court. Where the abovementioned court acceptance fee for the hearing of an appeal has not been paid within 7 days of the expiry of the appeal period, the appeal shall be treated as having been automatically withdrawn.

Presiding Judge – Zhang Hui

Judge – Cui Xuefeng

Acting Judge – Guo Yong

September 6 1999

Clerk: Zhang Yinlong

Comment and Analysis

This case involves a dispute about a letter of credit. None of the parties to the dispute proceeded with an appeal against the first-instance judgement. This judgement has already come into effect.

Whether considering the format of the document or the substance of the judgement, this judgement is outstanding. In terms of determining the facts, the arrangement of ideas is clear and the language refined. In the section on the reasoning behind the judgement, the thinking is rigorous and logical.

I. The format of the document is standard and in compliance with the regulations of the Supreme People's Court regarding the writing of litigation documents. The document is made up of the background of the parties to the litigation, the plaintiff's statement, the defendants response, the facts established by the court, and the determination and judgement of the court, and is orderly and lucid. In particular, in the section where the facts are determined, starting out from the formation of the legal relationship between the concerned parties and its implementation, the section is divided into establishment of the letter of credit, amendment of the letter of credit, the tendering of documents, the mailing of documents and claiming of reimbursement, refusal of payment of the letter of credit, the losses sustained by CNK Korea, the eligibility of CNK Korea to instigate litigation, determining the facts about the notarisation of the relevant documentation provided by CNK Korea, and so on. The description of the facts is orderly and clear, and can be understood at first glance.

II. The substance of the judgement clearly demonstrates a “clear determining of the facts and an appropriate application of the law”. Analysis and determination of the evidence relating to the dispute is detailed and is very convincing.

(1) The validity of the amendments to the letter of credit. This is a key question in relation to this case. According to the stipulation of Article 9 of Unified Customs and Practice for Documentary Letters of Credit, “Partial acceptance of the amended content of the same notice of amendment is not permitted. Therefore, partial acceptance of amended content is not valid.” After Evergreen Bank sent out its notice of amendment, even though CNK did not issue a notice to Evergreen Bank indicating acceptance or refusal of the notice of amendment, it did, however, indicate via the documents submitted by Donghua Bank that CNK's actions had lead to the amended letter of credit being invalid due it not being fully accepted. In this situation, both sides should have conducted their business on the basis of the original letter of credit. Correct determination of the validity of the amendments to the original letter of credit has direct implications for determination of the tenability of Evergreen Bank's reasons for refusal to pay.

(2) Evergreen Bank's refusal to pay. There were discrepancies between the documents submitted by CNK Korea and both the original letter of credit and the amended letter of credit. At that point in time, Evergreen Bank did not become aware of the fact that the amendments were invalid due to CNK Korea's partial acceptance of the notice of amendment. That is to say, Evergreen Bank used the amended letter of credit as the basis for examining the documents, and thus refused payment on the first batch of documents submitted by CNK Korea. That this judgement does not support their reasons for doing so is correct. According to cross-examination, the basis for Evergreen Bank to issue a notice of refusal to pay was the amended letter of credit, however, their basis for examination of the documents and for refusal to pay was incorrect. At the same time, their timeframe for examination of the documents was 8 working days, which exceeded the 7 days stipulated by Unified Customs and Practice for Documentary Letters of Credit. In a situation where Evergreen Bank had the opportunity to refuse to accept the documents submitted by CNK Korea, they did not refuse payment on the basis of CKK's partial acceptance of the amendments causing the amendments to be invalid. On the contrary, they examined the documents submitted by CNK based on the invalid amended letter of credit and then refused payment, thus forfeiting the right to refuse to accept the documents within the set time limit, and thereby should have to bear corresponding legal consequences.

(3) Losses incurred by CNK Korea. This judgement gives recognition to CNK's losses in terms of the sum of money under the letter of credit and the related interest and exchange losses. In terms of the basis for determining interest and exchange losses, as there was no agreement the relevant provisions of the laws of China have been applied. The handling of this situation in this way is appropriate. Moreover, because the basis for determination of losses is the Chinese law, no consideration was given to the question of legal fees, which is also appropriate.

韩国CNK交易株式会社诉中国光大银行信用证纠纷案

北京市第一中级人民法院
民事判决书

(1998)一中经初字第1336号

　　原告　CNK交易株式会社。
　　法定代表人　崔光智，代表理事。
　　委托代理人　景澄林，辽宁人民律师事务所大连分所律师。
　　委托代理人　金涛，辽宁人民律师事务所大连分所律师。
　　被告　中国光大银行。
　　法定代表人　唐庚尧，行长。
　　委托代理人　陈岩，该银行处长。
　　委托代理人　黄章任，该银行职员。
　　原告CNK交易株式会社(以下简称韩国CNK)诉被告中国光大银行(以下简称光大银行)信用证纠纷一案，本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。原告韩国CNK法定代表人崔光智、委托代理人景澄林、金涛，被告光大银行的委托代理人陈岩、黄章任均到庭参加了诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
　　原告韩国CNK诉称：1998年4月20日，被告光大银行依照《跟单信用证统一惯例》(国际商会第500号出版物，以下简称UCP500号)，以我方为受益人开出EBH098LC0057S号不可撤销跟单信用证，规定：500公吨阿拉斯加鳕鱼；2/3套清洁已装船海运提单正本和3份不可议付的提单副本；1/3正本提单等单据寄给大连海峰水产有限公司的王保国先生。后我方通过买方要求将数量改为1000公吨，被告光大银行于4月23日对前述信用证进行了修改，并将品名改为青鳕鱼。我方对此未作任何表示。但被告光大银行却以修改后的信用证为据发出因“不符点”而拒付货款的通知。按照UCP500号规定，我方对修改后的信用证并未作出接受的表示，且我方提供的单据表明我方对此次修改仅有部分接受，而这种接受应属无效，故修改后的信用证仅对被告光大银行产生约束力而未对我方产生约束力。因此，被告光大银行以我方单据存在“不符点”为由拒付款项不能成立；对我方交付的第二批货物，被告光大银行因审单逾期而无权宣称单证不符。我方向议付行韩国东华银行(以下简称东华银行)议付后，东华银行未能从被告光大银行收回信用证项下款项，故东华银行授权我方向被告光大银行追索上述欠款。被告光大银行的行为亦给我方造成经济损失，请求法院判令被告光大银行偿还我方欠款本金343618．74美元，赔偿我方直接损失(包括利息及汇率损失，截止至1999年8月20日)188649．69美元及自1999年8月21日起至欠款付清之日止的利息及汇率损失，承担本案诉讼费用(包括翻译费用、差旅费用)共计17506．22美元。
　　被告光大银行辨称：(一)本案信用证修改无效，我行不应承担任何责任。第一，1998年4月21日，我行根据开证申请人的申请，开出以原告韩国CNK为受益人的不可撤销信用证，开证金额163867．00美元；4月23日，我行又根据开证申请人的要求修改了原信用证的部分条款，并及时通知了原告韩国CNK，原告韩国CNK对此没有任何拒绝或接受的意思表示；原告韩国 CNK也确认只是部分按照修改后的信用证履行了交货义务。UCP500号第九条d款的规定：“在受益人告知通知修改的银行接受该修改之前，原信用证(或含有先前被接受修改的信用证)的条款，对受益人仍然有效。受益人应提供接受或拒绝修改的通知，……对同一修改通知中的修改内容不允许部分接受。因而，部分接受修改内容当属无效。”故本案信用证修改无效，我行与原告韩国CNK之间仅仅应当按照原信用证履行义务。现原告韩国CNK主张的第二批单据完全在原信用证规定金额之外，与我行开立的原信用证没有任何关系，因此我行对原告韩国CNK主张的第二批单据不应承担任何责任和义务；另外，原告韩国CNK提出我行对第二批单据拒付行为已超过规定的期限的理由不能成立，我行在1998年5月29日收到单据，因开证申请人中化国际化工品公司在6月8日才答复我行，我行立即在6月9日按照七个工作日的要求在规定的期限内答复予以拒付，我行的答复是及时和合理的，没有任何过错。第二、原告韩国CNK交付的第一批单据，与原信用证规定相比，存在以下表面不符点：(1)原信用证规定受益人应提交2/3份正本提单和3份副本提单，原告韩国CNK只提交了2/3份正本提单和2份副本提单；(2)原信用证规定货物金额为163875．00美元，原告韩国CNK提交的第一批单据的货物金额为180786．99美元，即使按原信用证规定允许5%的溢短装，仍然超出8718．24美元；(3)原信用证规定的货物单价为每公吨345．00美元，原告韩国CNK提交的第一批单据为每公吨330．00美元或430．00美元。按照UCP500规定的表面相符审查原则，我行对原告CNK提交的第一批单据进行了合理拒付，且拒付之后不应承担任何责任。(二)原告韩国CNK因货物被提取所遭受的损失应自负，其所提出的赔偿损失的要求没有法律和事实依据。根据信用证的规定，我行只负责接受2/3套正本提单，我行所接收的单据仍存放在我行保管，没有交给开证申请人用于提货，实际用货人之所以能够提取货物，是因为原告韩国CNK将1/3单据直接交给了用货人，对此后果原告韩国CNK应自负；原告韩国CNK在1998年7月26日与实际用货人签订协议并根据该协议取回了货物，因此原告韩国CNK没有受到任何损失，只是由于原告韩国CNK没有采取及时措施才导致目前状况，对此我行不应承担责任；(三)本案应适用我国法律。UCP500号只是一个参考的国际惯例，除非当事人另有约定，它不具有超越我国的法律法规的效力。我国法律规定，确定损失的原则是将损失限定在当事人一方在订立合同时可预见的范围内。在信用证关系下，可预见的损失范围仅限定货物价款的损失，原告韩国CNK提出的利息损失、汇率损失没有法律依据；(四)原告韩国CNK提供了与实际用货人之间的协议，没有提供与开证申请人的有关贸易协议和合同，而由开证申请人代开信用证的行为违反我国法律的规定不具有贸易真实性。综上，被告光大银行请求法院驳回原告韩国CNK的诉讼请求。
　　针对被告光大银行的答辩意见，原告韩国CNK的补充意见称：(一)我方提交的单据与信用证的规定不存在表面不符点。原信用证修改并通知我方后，我方在提示单据之前没有表示接受，且我方提交的证据与原信用证规定的货物品名一致，根据UCP500号的规定，该行为表示我方作为受益人并未接受信用证修改通知，原信用证对我方继续有效，而被告光大银行已经受修改后的信用证约束，故被告光大银行依据对我方无约束力但只对其自身有约束力的修改后的信用证提出不符点没有根据，当然被告光大银行现在对其他不符点亦无权提出；对第二批单据被告光大银行因审单逾期，按UCP500号的规定亦无权提出单证不符；(二)按照UCP500号的规定，信用证与合同是相互独立的交易，银行处理的只是单据而不是销售合同，故被告光大银行提供的我方与实际用货人之间的协议与本案无关。
　　经审理查明本案所涉证据及证明事实如下：
　　一、EBH098LC0057S号不可撤销跟单信用证
　　1998年4月20日，经中化国际化工品公司申请，被告光大银行开立上述信用证。受益人原告韩国CNK，受票人被告光大银行；金额163875．00美元，信用证可增减百分数05/05，汇票：95%发票金额即期；500公吨阿拉斯加青鳕鱼，规格：全长(从嘴部到尾部)22-30CM占85%，全长(从嘴部到尾部)30CM占15%；大连CFR每公吨345．00美元，总金额163875．00美元，可增减百分数05/05；不准分装、不准转船，最迟装船日为1998年5月15日；所需单据为：手签商业发票正本2份及副本3份，标明信用证号码，2/3套清洁已装船海运提单正本和3份不可议付的提单副本，证明1/3套正本提单、1份正本发票等单据已于装船后一个工作日内寄给大连海峰水产公司的王保国先生等条款。
　　二、信用证修改通知
　　1998年4月23日，中化国际化工品公司通知被告光大银行信用证作如下修改，被告光大银行于当日通知原告韩国CNK：
　　(一)金额增加163875．00美元，新金额为327750．00美元；
　　(二)“500公吨”改为“1000公吨(允许增减5%)净重”；
　　(三)“阿拉斯加青鳕鱼”改为“青鳕鱼”；
　　(四)单价改变：22-30CM，每公吨330．00美元，30CM以上每公吨430．00美元；
　　(五)允许分装；
　　(六)所需单据中第3项删掉“生产厂家”。
　　其他条款不变。
　　对上述信用证及修改通知所记载的文字内容，原告韩国CNK及被告光大银行均无异议。被告光大银行发出修改通知后，原告韩国CNK未向被告光大银行作出接受或拒绝的意思表示。
　　三、交单
　　原告韩国CNK将1000公吨货物分两批交付：
　　(一)98022号提单和CNK80501号发票(即原被告争议的第一批单据)。1998年5月9日，船东KIST签发98022号提单，托运人原告韩国CNK，阿拉斯加青鳕鱼555．370公吨；提单正本3份等内容。同日，原告韩国CNK出具商业发票，编号CNK80501，卖方原告韩国CNK；阿拉斯加青鳕鱼，全长(嘴至尾)22-30CM：25530盘，485．07公吨，每公吨330．00美元，总计160073．10美元；全长(嘴至尾)30CM以上3700盘，70．30公吨，每公吨430．00美元，总计30229．00美元。以上共计29230盘，555．37公吨，价值190302．10美元。发票总价值的95%为180786．99美元。
　　(二)98025号提单和80505-1号商业发票(即原被告争议的第二批单据)。1998年5月15日，船东KIST签发98025号提单，托运人原告韩国CNK，阿拉斯加青鳕鱼465．595公吨，提单正本3份等内容。1998年5月23日，原告韩国CNK出具商业发票，编号CNK80505-1，卖方原告韩国CNK，阿拉斯加青鳕鱼，全长(嘴至尾)22-30CM：15160盘，288．04公吨，每公吨330．00美元，总计95053．20美元；全长(嘴至尾)30CM以上9345盘，177．555公吨，每公吨430．00美元，总计76348．65美元。以上共计24505盘，465．595公吨，171401．85美元。发票总价值的95%为162831．75美元。
　　上述两份提单记载货物数量为1020．965公吨，总金额为343618．74美元。
　　对上述提单及货物发票所记载的文字内容，原被告双方均无异议。
　　上述单据表明，原告韩国CNK仅部分接受了被告光大银行发出的信用证修改通知的内容，接受内容为数量、单价、运输方式，未接受内容为货物品名。
　　四、寄单索汇
　　(一)第一批单据
　　1998年5月11日，东华银行通知被告光大银行，应付净总值180786．99美元，即期；发给开证行的文件：汇票2份、商业发票2份＋3份副本、提单2/3套正本＋2份副本等内容。
　　(二)第二批单据交付
　　1．1998年5月26日，东华银行将第二批单据交DHL寄送被告光大银行，文号9510898165。
　　2．1998年5月28日，DHL公司将信件送被告光大银行，该银行职员李茜签收，文号9510898165。
　　3．同日，被告光大银行国际业务部宋晋平在该银行信件登记表上签收邮件，文号9510898165。
　　被告光大银行否认有李茜其人，但确认宋晋平为该公司国际业务部工作人员。
　　五、信用证被拒付
　　(一)1998年5月25日，被告光大银行通知东华银行，因下列不符点拒收第一批货款180786．99美元项下单据：(1)单据上品名“阿拉斯加青鳕鱼”，不是信用证上“青鳕”；(2)副本提单只提供了2份，不是信用证上3份。
　　(二)1998年6月9日，被告光大银行通知东华银行，因下列不符点拒收第二批货款162831．75美元项下单据：(1)货物名称阿拉斯加青鳕，不是信用证上青鳕；(2)货物的比例不符合信用证的要求；(3)在装船后1个工作日内，1/3套正本提单、一份正本发票、一份正本健康(免疫)证明和一份正本装箱单没有寄给申请人。
　　六、原告韩国CNK的损失
　　(一)因东华银行已被韩国新韩银行(以下简称新韩银行)收购，新韩银行于1998年8月20日出具确认书确认原告韩国CNK已分别于1998年5月11日、5月25日向东华银行议付了EBH098LC0057S信用证项下款项共计343618．74美元。因新韩银行未能从被告光大银行收取上述信用证金额，故新韩银行向原告韩国CNK收取上述未付本金及利息。其中1998年5月11日美元与韩元兑换率为1392．00，第一批货物货款本金180786．99美元折合251655490．00韩元；5月25日美元与韩元兑换率为1382．00，第二批货物货款本金162831．75美元折合224707815．00韩元。(二)新韩银行确认给原告韩国CNK的韩元一般贷款年利率为21%，未付款利息为年利率27%；1998年8月20日美元与韩元的兑换率为1277．70美元。(三)新韩银行确认至1998年8月20日止，第一批货物货款本金的未付利息为18987923．00韩元；第二批货物货款本金的未付利息为14627555．00韩元；(四)至1998年8月20日，上述未付本金及利息共计399138．12美元。
　　七、原告韩国CNK的诉讼主体资格
　　本案信用证由东华银行议付，原告韩国CNK提交了经有关机关公证认证的东华银行出具的“诉讼权利转让确认书”，东华银行声明将与该信用证有关的一切诉讼权利转让给该信用证的受益人原告韩国CNK。在本案审理过程中，东华银行再次出具证明，将该信用证项下一切权益和权利转让原告韩国CNK。
　　原告韩国CNK提交的东华银行转让诉讼权利确认书、汇率、利息损失确认书已经韩国有关公证机关公证并经我国驻韩国大使馆认证，具备证据效力
　　上述事实，有信用证、信用证修改通知、提单、发票、传真、确认书、到庭当事人陈述及其他证据在案佐证。
　　根据上述事实及有关证据，本院认为：
　　一、UCP500号第九条d第Ⅰ项规定：“除第48条另有规定外，未经开证行、保兑行(如有的话)及受益人的同意，不可撤销信用证既不能修改，也不能撤销。”本案所涉信用证为不可撤销跟单信用证，故其经开证申请人申请、由被告光大银行在开立之后即对原被告双方产生约束力。
　　二、UCP500号第九条d款第Ⅱ项规定：“自发出信用证修改之时起，开证行就不可撤销地受其所发出的修改书的约束。”故自1998年4月23日被告光大银行向原告韩国CNK发出信用证修改通知之时起，即开始受其所发出的该修改通知的约束。
　　三、UCP500号第九条d款第Ⅲ项规定：“在受益人告知通知修改的银行表示接受该修改之前，原信用证(或先前已接受修改的信用证)的条款对受益人仍然有效。受益人应发出接受或拒绝修改的通知。如果受益人未提供上述通知，当他提交给指定银行或开证行的单据与信用证以及尚未表示接受的修改的通知一致时，并且从此时起，该信用证已被修改。”同款第Ⅳ项规定：“对同一修改通知中的修改内容不允许部分接受，因而，部分接受修改内容当属无效。”原告韩国CNK在被告光大银行通知其信用证修改后并未表示接受或拒绝，其提交的单据条款部分与修改前的信用证条款相符、部分与修改通知条款相符，即原告韩国CNK提交的单据表明其对修改内容仅作了部分接受，违反了UCP500号的上述规定。故修改后的信用证应属无效，原告韩国CNK及被告光大银行均仍受原信用证的约束。
　　四、原告韩国CNK提交的单据无论与修改之前还是修改之后的信用证确均有不符点，但被告光大银行依据无效的信用证提出原告韩国CNK提交的单据与之存在不符点进而拒付，即其审单标准错误，拒付依据错误，故其对原告韩国CNK提交的第一批单据的拒付理由不能成立。
　　五、UCP500号第十三条b款规定：“开证行、保兑行(如有)或代其行事的指定银行，应有各自的合理时间--不得超过从其收到单据翌日起算七个银行工作日--审核单据以决定接受或拒绝接受单据，并相应地通知寄送单据的一方。”第十四条d款第Ⅰ项规定：“如开证行及/或保兑行(如有)，或代其行事的指定银行，决定拒绝接受单据，它必须不得延误地以电讯方式，如不可能，则以其他快捷方式通知此事，但不得迟于收到单据的翌日起算第七个银行工作日。该通知应发给寄送单据的银行，或者如直接从受益人处收到单据，则通知受益人。”根据庭审质证，被告光大银行确认其国际业务部工作人员接收第二批单据的时间为1998年5月28日，其通知议付行拒付时间为6月9日。自5月29日至6月9日共12天，其中包括4个公休日，扣除该4个公休日后，被告光大银行审核单据的时间实际为8天，且其于1998年6月9日的拒付理由及依据仍为信用证修改通知，故被告光大银行辩称原告韩国CNK提交的第二批单据的金额已超出原信用证的规定金额、与原信用证无关、其不应承担责任的理由与当时的拒付理由不同，本院不予考虑。被告光大银行因审单逾期而无权宣布拒付原告韩国CNK提交的第二批单据，其于1998年6月9日的拒付行为因其拒付依据错误应属无效。
　　六、根据UCP500号第四条“在信用证业务中，各有关当事人所处理的只是单据，而不是单据所涉及的货物、服务或/其他行为”的规定，故被告光大银行关于原告韩国CNK已与实际用货人签订协议取回货物但因原告韩国CNK原因导致损失发生故其不应承担责任的理由不能成立。
　　七、根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》的有关规定，涉外民事关系的法律适用应依照我国法律的有关规定，我国法律及我国参加的国际条约没有规定的，可以适用国际惯例。UCP500号规定了在信用证关系中各有关当事人的权利及义务，是信用证业务的统一惯例，故因信用证引发的纠纷及责任认定本院认为应适用该国际惯例；而原被告双方责任的具体分担因该惯例没有规定，故应适用中华人民共和国法律。被告光大银行关于本案应适用我国法律的辩称没有法律依据，本院不予支持。
　　八、因东华银行已出具确认书，将本案信用证项下所有权利转让给原告韩国CNK，故本院对原告韩国CNK的诉讼主体资格予以认定。
　　九、关于原告韩国CNK的诉讼请求：(一)因被告光大银行拒付行为无效，故被告光大银行应向原告韩国CNK支付信用证项下欠款本金343618．74美元。(二)被告光大银行亦应赔偿原告韩国CNK分别自其拒付日起至欠款付清之日止的直接损失，包括利息及汇率损失利息。新韩银行出具的确认书确认的损失计算截止日期为1998年8月20日，故截止该日的利息及汇率损失的计算标准应依照该确认书的有关数据。鉴于本案的特殊情况，原告韩国CNK自1998年8月21日起至欠款付清之日止的利息及汇率损失，本院认为可参照我国有关规定计算该赔偿数额。(三)原告韩国CNK要求被告光大银行承担本案全部诉讼费用，包括案件受理费、原告韩国CNK法定代表人崔光智及原告律师出庭差旅费用5440．00美元、诉讼材料翻译费用1050．00美元等共计17506．22美元。按照最高人民法院的有关规定，诉讼费用不包括当事人的差旅费用，且原告韩国CNK未提供证明翻译费用数额的相应证据，故对原告韩国CNK关于被告光大银行承担其差旅费用、翻译费用的请求本院不予支持。
　　综上，依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百四十二条第二款、第三款，《中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法》第二十三条，《跟单信用证统一惯例》(UCP500号)第九条d款，第十三条a款、b款，第十四条c款、d款第Ⅰ项及最高人民法院《关于适用〈涉外经济合同法〉若干问题的解答》第六条及有关规定，判决如下：　
　　一、被告中国光大银行支付原告CNK交易株式会社欠款343618．74美元(于本判决生效后十日内一次付清)。
　　二、被告中国光大银行赔偿原告CNK交易株式会社上述欠款本金的利息及汇率损失(其中180786．99美元自1998年5月25日起、162831．75美元自1998年6月9日起均计至1998年8月20日止。美元与韩元的兑换率按1277．70计算；韩元利息均按年利率27%计算。自1998年8月21日起至欠款付清之日止的利息及汇率损失依照最高人民法院法释［1999］8号的规定计算。于本判决生效后十日内给付)。
　　三、驳回原告CNK交易株式会社的其他诉讼请求。
　　案件受理费人民币31550．00元(原告已交纳)由被告中国光大银行负担(于本判决生效后七日内交付本院)。
　　如不服本判决，原告CNK交易株式会社可在判决书送达之日起三十日内、被告中国光大银行可在判决书送达之日起十五日内向本院提交上诉状及副本，并交纳上诉案件受理费人民币31550．00元(开户行：工商行北京分行石景山支行黄楼分理处；户名：北京市第一中级人民法院；账号：144537-09)，上诉于北京市高级人民法院。在上诉期满后七日内仍未交纳上诉案件受理费，按自动撤回上诉处理。

审判长　　　张　辉
审判员　　　崔学锋
代理审判员　郭　泳
一九九九年九月六日
书记员　　　张印龙

fnl_4648
评析：
　　本案为信用证纠纷。各方当事人对于一审判决未提起上诉，该判决已经发生法律效力。
　　该判决无论从文书格式上还是判决内容上均很出色。在事实认定上，层次清楚，语言精练；说理部分，思维严密，逻辑性强。
　　一、文书格式规范，符合最高人民法院关于制作诉讼文书的规定，由当事人基本情况、原告诉称、被告答辩、法院查明的事实、法院认定和判决的情况等组成，条理清晰。尤其在事实的认定部分，从当事人之间法律关系的形成、履行情况出发，将事实部分分为信用证的开立、信用证的修改、交单、寄单索汇、信用证被拒付、韩国CNK的损失、韩国CNK的诉讼主体资格、韩国CNK的有关材料的公证认证情况等，叙述条理清楚，一目了然。
　　二、判决内容充分说明了“认定事实清楚，适用法律得当”。对案件争议证据的分析认定详尽，具有很强的说服力。(1)关于信用证的修改是否有效。这是本案的关键问题。根据《跟单信用证统一惯例》第9条“对同一修改通知中的修改内容不允许部分接受，因而，部分接受修改内容当属无效”的规定，光大银行发出修改通知后，韩国CNK虽然未向光大银行发出接受或拒绝修改的通知，但其通过东华银行提交的单证表明，韩国CNK的行为已导致修改的信用证因未完全接受而无效。在此情况下，双方应按原信用证执行。原于信用证修改效力的正确认定，直接关系到后面光大银行拒付理由是否成立的认定。(2)关于光大银行的拒付行为。在韩国CNK提交的单证中，既与原信用证存在不符点，也与修改后的信用证存在不符点。此时，光大银行并没有注意到因韩国CNK部分接受通知而导致修改无效的情况，即将修改后的信用证作为审单依据，从而对韩国CNK的第一批单据拒付，该判决不予支持其理由正确的。根据质证，光大银行发出拒付通知所依据的是修改通知，其审查依据、拒付依据是错误的。同时，其审单时间为8个工作日，超过了《跟单信用证统一惯例》规定的7个工作日。光大银行在有机会拒绝接受单据的情况下，未以韩国CNK部分接受修改致使修改无效为由而拒付，而是依据修改后无效的信用证审单并做出拒付行为，丧失了在一定期限内拒绝接受单据的权利，因此应承担相应的法律后果。(3)关于韩国CNK的损失。该判决书认定了信用证项下的款项及其利息和汇率损失。在利息和汇率损失的认定依据上，因无约定而适用中国法律的规定。这种处理是适当的，而因为依据的是中国法律，对于律师费用问题未予考虑，也无不当之处。