The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) Examining the records, the court below recognized each fact such as the original edition and each legal judgment such as the original edition were lawful, and all of them were deemed to have been duly conducted. In addition, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on cancellation of Article 388(2), 544, 545, and 546 of the Civil Act or the Civil Act of misunderstanding of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on cancellation of Article 388(2), 544, 546.

(2) Among the arguments, under Article 1 (1) of the Addenda to the Regulations on the Maximum Interest Rate under Article 1 (1) of the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1972. 2, Aug. 2, 1972), "the interest rate on the loan of money established prior to the enforcement date of this Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30, Aug. 3, 1972) shall be at the rate of interest under the contract within the time limit of the contract within the extent not exceeding 30% per annum." The amount of the principal and interest repaid in this case at issue is short of the amount calculated without complying with the interest rate under the above Addenda. However, the court below recognized the amount of the deposit for repayment according

In the case of this case where it is evident that the court of first instance has not claimed the amount of the instant repayment deposit from the first instance to the original trial, it cannot be viewed as a new factual assertion in the final appeal, which is a legal trial. This is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)