Where examination of the underlying transaction is necessary to establish fraud under an independent guarantee, courts shall adhere to the principle of limitation and necessity. A beneficiary’s breach under the underlying contract does not impair its right to present documents and make a demand for payment pursuant to the independent‑guarantee terms. Even if fraud exists under an independent guarantee, people’s courts shall not order suspension of payment under an independent counter‑guarantee where payment under the primary independent guarantee has already been made in good faith.