(영문) 대법원 2015.3.12.선고 2013다63721 판결

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In cases where an agreement is made with a monetary loan agreement, if the interest rate was set significantly high, beyond the limit permitted by social norms, due to a difference in economic power between the parties, due to the difference in economic power between the parties, in light of the economic and social conditions at the time, the agreement on the interest that exceeds the permissible limit is null and void as a juristic act whose content is in violation of good morals and other social order, since the lender gains unjust profits by taking advantage of his superior status and the borrower bears an excessive and unfair burden, and thus the borrower bears an excessive and unfair burden, and the lender has agreed and received the interest rate exceeding the limit permitted by social norms;

The portion exceeding the reasonable interest rate should be returned to the borrower as unjust enrichment (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da50426, Feb. 15, 2007).

2. The lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant, while lending KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff on December 29, 2006, added to the interest rate of KRW 200 million up to June 30, 2007, and, if the principal was returned until the due date, agreed to be paid damages for delay at the rate of KRW 150 million per month for the principal. In order to secure this, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 39,076,255 for each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff in the voluntary auction procedure based on the above right to collateral security, and that the Defendant received dividends of KRW 30,000 to the Plaintiff on September 29, 2009 in excess of the maximum interest rate of KRW 20,000 per annum 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 per annum 20,0000,000 per annum 27,000,000,000.

3. According to the above legal principles and facts acknowledged by the court below, the above interest agreement is to receive interest at an excessive rate of interest rate of 150% per annum from the lending date to the maturity date, and thus, it is deemed to contain matters contrary to good morals and other social order.

However, the lower court, on the sole basis of the circumstance that the maximum interest rate provision under Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act was set at 30% per annum by delegation of the former Interest Limitation Act, without examining the economic and social conditions at the time of the above lending, including the time and degree of the regulation of the laws and regulations on the interest rate, and on the basis of the fact that the maximum interest rate provision under Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act was set at 30% per annum, determined that the entire part of the above interest agreement was received exceeding 30% per annum

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to good morals and social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the scope of unjust enrichment exceeding the legitimate interest rate.

4. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.