From July 2, 2010 to August 8, 2010, the Defendant loaned 20,000,000 won to the debtor D operator from that time to July 22, 2013, and run a loan business without registering it with the competent authority.

2. Determination

A. The main sentence of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Registration of Loan Business, Etc. and Protection of Financial Users (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”) means a business of lending money (including providing money by means of bill discount, transfer security, or any other similar method) or a business of collecting claims under a loan agreement from a person who has registered his/her lending business pursuant to Article 3 or a credit financial institution by acquiring claims under a loan agreement from his/her financial institution.

“.....”

Here, “business” means continuing to repeat the same act, and whether it constitutes such act ought to be determined in accordance with the social norms by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., repeated and continued lending of money or brokerage, whether the act was conducted, whether the act was conducted, and the purpose, size, frequency, period, and manner of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8449, Sept. 27, 2013, etc.). (b) In this case, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., (i) the Defendant did not appear to have taken active measures to recover claims immediately after the Defendant received a security from the debtor or delayed payment of the interest. Rather, the Defendant does not appear to have taken active measures to recover claims.