beta
Text
The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence against the accused.
Reasons
1. A person who intends to engage in loan business based on the summary of the facts charged in the instant case shall register with the competent authority, and where a unregistered credit service provider grants a loan, he/she shall not receive interest exceeding 30 percent per annum from January 21, 2009 to July 14, 2014 and 25 percent per annum from July 15, 2014.
The Defendant, without registering a loan business, lent KRW 9.5 million to D around February 3, 2012, and received repayment of KRW 1.0 million around February 17, 2012. From around that time to December 30, 2015, the Defendant loaned KRW 158,695,000 to the said D, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and received interest exceeding the interest rate by receiving reimbursement of KRW 247,526,80 in total.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserts that the instant facts charged under the premise that the Defendant operated the lending business is not guilty, since the Defendant merely lent D privately and did not engage in business.
B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users provides that “The term “loan business” means a business of lending money (including providing money through bill discount transfer, security, or any other similar means), a person who has registered a loan business pursuant to Article 3, or a credit financial institution to collect claims arising from a loan agreement, by acquiring by transfer of such claims from the credit financial institution.”
Here, “business” means continuing to repeat the same act, and whether it constitutes a business thereof shall be determined in accordance with the social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as whether a loan of money or brokerage is repeated or not, whether a business is conducted or not, and the purpose and frequency duration of the act, regardless of whether the person or material facilities required therefor are simply equipped (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1985, Mar. 29, 2012, etc.).
This Court has duly adopted and investigated.