영업정지처분취소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) are also examined.
1. Article 8(1) of the former Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (amended by Act No. 12156, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) provides that “Where a credit service provider lends a loan to an individual or a small corporation prescribed by Presidential Decree, the interest rate shall not exceed the rate prescribed by Presidential Decree within the limit of 50/100 per annum.”
Accordingly, Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides for the highest interest rate. The Enforcement Decree amended by Presidential Decree No. 22298 on July 21, 2010 provides that the highest interest rate shall be from 49% per annum to 44% per annum, and the Enforcement Decree amended by Presidential Decree No. 22991 on June 27, 2011 shall reduce the highest interest rate from 44% per annum to 39% per annum (hereinafter “amended Enforcement Decree”), and Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Decree provides that the amended Enforcement Decree shall apply to loan agreements concluded or renewed after the enforcement of the amended Enforcement Decree.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court: (a) deemed that the Intervenor, from October 18, 201 to November 1, 2011, conducted an inspection of compliance with the highest interest rate and adequacy of the application of interest rates to loan service users, etc.; and (b) applied the 11,741 loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan transaction”) for which five years have elapsed from the date of entering into the contract as of September 30, 201, which was five years from the date of entering into the contract as of September 30, 201; and (c) deemed that the Intervenor paid more than seven hundred and seventy million won interest by applying the previous interest rate, which is not the highest interest rate reduced pursuant to the amended Enforcement Decree; and (d) found that the Intervenor was in violation of Article 8 of the Credit Business Act; and (c) the Defendant was informed of the Plaintiff’s violation by the Intervenor; and (d) discovered