logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.10 2012누31894
영업정지처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s business suspension against the Plaintiff on February 16, 2012 on March 5, 2012.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”).

(2) The Defendant was delegated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor pursuant to Article 104(2) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 5(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Entrustment of Administrative Affairs to a credit service provider under the authority of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor to suspend its business.

B. (1) Article 8(1) of the Credit Business Act provides that where a credit service provider grants a loan to a loan obligor, such as an individual, the interest rate shall not exceed the rate prescribed by Presidential Decree within 50/100 per annum. Accordingly, Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Credit Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20313, Oct. 4, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 22298, Jul. 21, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22298, Jul. 21, 2010; the foregoing provision was amended on July 21, 2010; the maximum interest rate was reduced to 44% per annum; and the amendment on Jun. 27, 2011; and the amendment of the Enforcement Decree shall be referred to as “each amended Enforcement Decree” and “each amended Enforcement Decree” (hereinafter referred to as “each amended Enforcement Decree”).

(2) Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of each amendment provides that the amended provision on the maximum interest rate shall apply from the loan agreements concluded or renewed after the enforcement of each amendment.

(The Enforcement Decree of each Amendment shall enter into force on each date of its promulgation).

1) The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is deemed to be the Intervenor.

From October 4, 2011 to October 10, 2011, a credit service provider and a customer under a contract set the lending limit in advance for the Plaintiff and set up the lending limit within the scope of the customer’s wishes, the lending contract refers to a loan agreement in which the credit service provider and the customer wish to do so, to the extent of the desired amount.

The adequacy of the application of interest rates to users, and the conclusion of loan agreements at the time of reduction of interest rates.

arrow