Cases concerning the application of the interest rate of corporate bonds prescribed in Article 10 of the Emergency Order on the Stabilization and Growth of the Economy;

The interest rate on corporate bonds under the provisions of Article 10 of the above Emergency Order shall be 16% per annum pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 (2) of the above Emergency Order (1%) and 25% per annum pursuant to the amended Interest Limitation Act.

Article 10 of the Emergency Order Concerning the Stabilization and Growth of the Economy, Article 19 of the Emergency Order Concerning the Stabilization and Growth of the Economy, Article 1 of the Interest Limitation Act

Plaintiff

Thai Construction Company.

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na301 delivered on November 16, 1972

The part of the judgment of the court below that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff at the rate of 25 percent per annum from August 3, 1972 to the full payment date shall be reversed, and this part shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

All of the defendant's appeals against the original judgment except the above paragraph (1) are dismissed.

Part of the costs of appeal against the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment on the first ground for appeal

The court below did not believe the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is opposed thereto, and found the establishment of the loan. However, in comparison with the records, the court below compared the evidence stated in this point with the records, and recognized the above lending by legitimate evidence, and therefore, the court below acknowledged the above lending by legitimate evidence, which is groundless.

Judgment on the third ground for appeal

The issue is that the purpose of the above three-time loans extended through Nonparty 3 was unclear as to the decision of the court below, and that of which, on May 3, 1971, Nonparty 3 had already resigned from the director, the last portion of which is the last portion, and therefore, at least, this part is not responsible for the defendant company. However, the court below deems that, in both the facts that Dong was a person in charge of permanent residence work site and the three-time loan relationship, the court below provided the plaintiff with the majority of the number of shares of the representative director of the defendant company (the defendant also recognized its establishment) and received the loan from that person by taking full account of the testimony of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 as well as the witness, so long as it is deemed legitimate that the plaintiff lent all of them to the defendant company through Nonparty 3, the theory of lawsuit is groundless because it was returned to an indefinitely significant part.

The second ground for appeal is examined.

The court below found that the plaintiff as a director of the defendant company's director and 300,000 won on June 20, 1970, 375,000 won on July 2, 1970, 50,000 won on May 3, 1971, and 50,000 won on the interest rate of each month, and this case is a corporate bond as prescribed in Article 10 of the Emergency Order for Economic Stabilization and Growth (hereinafter referred to as the "Emergency Order") with the rate of 15% on the interest rate of 25% on the revised interest rate of 3% on August 3, 1972, since it is clear that the plaintiff is liable to pay the interest rate of 10,000 won on the defendant through the non-party 3, who is the person in charge of work site in the permanent railway station at the time, as a director of the defendant company, and the court below found that the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation is justified, but it is not reasonable to acknowledge this part of this case's interest rate of 2.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)