Whether a transplant exceeding the prescribed interest rate of transplant restriction can be the object of quasi-loan for consumption

Since transplant exceeding the interest rate prescribed by transplant restriction Decree cannot be the object of quasi-loan, a quasi-loan agreement in which excess transplant is included shall be null and void only for that part.

Article 2 of the Transplant Restriction Decree (Ordinance No. 13)

Plaintiff

Defendant

An original judgment shall be altered in parallel with the original judgment.

The defendant paid 2,500,000 dollars to the plaintiff and 20 percent interest per year from November 15, 287 to the full payment.

The plaintiff's claim for objection is dismissed.

6 minutes of the total litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff, and 1 shall be borne by the defendant, and 5 shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant (appellant)'s attorney shall revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances. The plaintiff (appellant)'s attorney is assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On June 9, 287, the actual assertion of both parties between the plaintiff's legal representative would make a non-violation within 3 days in the future, and the plaintiff would have made a loan to the defendant with the trust of the plaintiff and 2,500,000 won. However, since the defendant did not make a repayment even after the expiration of 11th of the same month, the repayment date, the defendant urged the defendant to make a payment, and the defendant would make a compensation for damages caused by the above-mentioned breach, by adding an amount equivalent to 15% of the above-mentioned loan amount to 2,50,000 won, every month, and the plaintiff would make a second demand for the payment within the next 3 days, so the plaintiff would make a second demand for the payment, and after that approval, the defendant would have made a second demand for the payment, and the payment was made only on September 5, 200 as interest payment, 690,0000.

However, the Plaintiff issued 1,50,00 receipts (No. 1,200) for the first 0-year interest rate of 1,000 won and 0-year interest rate of 1,50,000 won to the Defendant for the first 0-year interest rate of 0-year interest rate of 0-year interest rate of 1,000,000 won and 1,000,000 won to the Defendant for the first 0-year interest rate of 0-year interest rate of 10-year interest rate of 0-year interest rate of 1,000,000-year interest rate of 10-year interest rate of 0-year interest rate of 0,000-year interest rate of 10-year interest rate of 0,000-year interest rate of 0,0000-year interest rate of 1,000-year interest rate of 0,000-year interest rate of 1,000-year interest rate of 1.

As evidence, the plaintiff's attorney submitted the evidence No. 1, and sought the summons of the witness Non-party 2 and 1 at the trial court, and the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 at the trial court recognized its establishment, and the defendant's attorney submitted the evidence No. 1 and 2, sought the examination of the defendant himself, and denied the formation of evidence No. 1.

In light of the above-mentioned facts, Defendant 1 and Nonparty 2’s 0-year interest rate of KRW 100,000 and KRW 1,500,000, KRW 10-year interest rate of KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 100,000, and KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, and KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, and KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, and KRW 0,000, KRW 10,000.

Judges Choi Ma-ho (Presiding Judge)