logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2021.01.19 2020고정507
이자제한법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall receive interest exceeding 24% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under a contract for lending and borrowing of money.

Nevertheless, on November 16, 2018, the Defendant lent KRW 300,000,00 to B in an insular coffee store near the subway station located in Seocho-gu Seoul, and paid KRW 274,00,000,000 calculated by deducting the pre-paid interest of KRW 18,000,000 from that place, and received KRW 8,000,000 from that place, and received KRW 6,00,000 on February 16, 2019 and received KRW 86,250,000 (including the pre-paid interest of KRW 18,00,000 and KRW 8,00,000 from that place) more than the interest rate of KRW 318,81.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Although the Defendant alleged the determination of the claim for factual inquiry, the statement of loan interest rate, the Defendant, and the defense counsel’s assertion was aware that the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act was 24%, the Defendant did not know that the interest should be calculated on the basis of the amount actually lent when the loan was granted after deducting the prior interest or a certified judicial scrivener’s fee. Therefore, there was no intention to commit a violation of the Act, and even if the intention is recognized, the

2. In full view of the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Interest Limitation Act, the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 86,250,000 that was paid over 10 times is determined as interest on KRW 274,00,000 in the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

As long as the defendant knew that he was paid the above money from B, the defendant's intentional violation of the Interest Limitation Act is recognized, and the circumstances alleged by the defendant do not constitute a mistake of law with legitimate reasons.

arrow