logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.11.20 2014고정1214
대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

No person who intends to engage in credit business shall register with the competent authority for each business office, and where an unregistered credit service provider lends a loan, he/she shall receive interest exceeding the interest rate of 30% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act with respect to the interest rate.

Nevertheless, around March 31, 2010, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s home located in Gwangju City, did not register credit business, received interest equivalent to KRW 5 million on a monthly interest of KRW 200,000,000 on condition of KRW 2 million until repayment was made to D, and run credit business, such as lending to three debtors as indicated in the separate list of crimes, and received interest exceeding the limited interest rate by receiving the highest interest amounting to 199.1% per annum from the obligor.

Judgment

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) provides that “The term “credit business” means a business of lending money, or a business of collecting claims arising from a loan agreement, acquired by transfer from a person who has registered a credit business under Article 3 or a credit financial institution.”

Here, the term “business” means continuing to repeat the same act, and whether it constitutes such act ought to be determined in accordance with social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as lending or brokerage of money, repetition and continuity of brokerage, existence of business, purpose, size, frequency, period, and mode of the act, regardless of whether the act was simply equipped with human or physical facilities necessary therefor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8449, Sept. 27, 2013). Each of the instant charges is based on the premise that the Defendant is a credit service provider, and thus, whether the Defendant was engaged in a business of lending money.

Witness

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including D's testimony, the defendant is the defendant.

arrow