A. Scope of application of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act

B. Whether a loan agreement for consumption with no interest or maturity agreement is concluded (affirmative)

A. Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Code apply to all cases where the borrower has promised to return the borrowed object to be returned by a loan agreement for consumption or a quasi-loan agreement for consumption.

B. It cannot be deemed that a loan contract does not enter into, unless there is an agreement for interest or maturity on the loan.

A. Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act; Article 598 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 65Da1302 decided Sep. 21, 1965 (No. 13 ② citizen 145)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na10352 delivered on March 11, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The court below held that the Plaintiff’s lending KRW 10 million to the Defendant twice and the Defendant lost in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership shall return the above borrowed principal, but if the Plaintiff acquired real estate in favor of the result of the lawsuit, etc., it shall not be in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence. Furthermore, in the above facts, the court below affirmed that the market price of the real estate that the Defendant agreed to transfer to the Plaintiff in lieu of the return of the borrowed amount exceeds KRW 40,00,00 as at the time of the agreement on the real estate that the Defendant moved to the Plaintiff in lieu of the return of the borrowed amount, and held that the amount equivalent to the interest on the borrowed principal exceeds the principal and interest on the loan even if considering the fact that there is a reasonable time until the end of the lawsuit, and therefore, the part of the agreement on the return of the borrowed amount is null and void. The court below’s above determination is justified.

Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act apply to all cases where a borrower makes a promise to return goods to the borrower with respect to the borrowed goods to be returned under a loan agreement for consumption or a quasi-loan agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Da1302, Sept. 21, 1965). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 607 of the Civil Act applies only to a loan for consumption with interest only to a loan for consumption with interest under an agreement is its own opinion, and it cannot be said that a loan for consumption does not enter into an agreement on the loan

The judgment of the court below does not contain any violation of the principle of pleading such as the theory of lawsuit, or there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the borrowed money or lack of reasoning. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho