BR-61If the Payment means type code (BT-81) means SEPA credit transfer, Local credit transfer or Non-SEPA international credit transfer, the Payment account identifier (BT-84) shall be present.

Why does BR-61 happen?

Closely related to BR-50 but triggered differently: BR-50 applies once credit transfer data is present, BR-61 through the code. In UBL, BR-61 only checks where the code is 30 or 58 — set 58 and omit the account group altogether and this rule reports alone. In CII both look at the same two elements but test different things: BR-50 wants a non-empty value, BR-61 only that the element is there. An empty ram:IBANID therefore reports BR-50 by itself.

What the validator checks

The expression the official KoSIT rule set evaluates — not paraphrased, but read from the Schematron file it ships. UBL and CII address different document trees, so the same rule reads differently in each.

UBL

(exists(cac:PayeeFinancialAccount/cbc:ID) and ((normalize-space(cbc:PaymentMeansCode) = '30') or (normalize-space(cbc:PaymentMeansCode) = '58') )) or ((normalize-space(cbc:PaymentMeansCode) != '30') and (normalize-space(cbc:PaymentMeansCode) != '58'))

CII

(ram:IBANID) or (ram:ProprietaryID)

Source: rule set v2026-08-31

How do you fix BR-61?

Write the IBAN into cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PayeeFinancialAccount/cbc:ID in UBL, ram:PayeePartyCreditorFinancialAccount/ram:IBANID in CII — or set the code to the payment means actually intended.

<cac:PaymentMeans>
  <cbc:PaymentMeansCode>58</cbc:PaymentMeansCode>
  <cbc:PaymentID>RE-2026-0042</cbc:PaymentID>
</cac:PaymentMeans>

<cac:PaymentMeans>
  <cbc:PaymentMeansCode>58</cbc:PaymentMeansCode>
  <cbc:PaymentID>RE-2026-0042</cbc:PaymentID>
  <cac:PayeeFinancialAccount>
    <cbc:ID>DE02120300000000202051</cbc:ID>
  </cac:PayeeFinancialAccount>
</cac:PaymentMeans>