beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the joint and several surety column of the evidence No. 3 was forged, based on its stated reasoning, and the Plaintiff determined KRW 30,00,000 to C on October 20, 201 as due date for repayment and determined KRW 30,00,000 to be 3% per month of interest, and recognized the Defendant’s joint and several surety at the time of lease.
Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, or did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the formation of the authenticity of documents.
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment with respect to the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act among the fourth points in the grounds of appeal, the lower court found the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff on April 4, 2012, KRW 7 million on April 24, 2012, KRW 300,000 on November 6, 2012, KRW 500,000 on December 7, 2012, KRW 500,000 on December 11, 2012, and KRW 3% on December 11, 2012, applied the agreed interest rate, and appropriated the remainder for the repayment of interest or delay damages, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
However, according to Article 2(1), (3), and (4) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014); and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014); the maximum interest rate under a contract for lending and borrowing of money is 30% per annum; the portion exceeding the maximum interest rate under a contract is null and void; and the amount equivalent to the over-paid interest is appropriated for the principal where the debtor arbitrarily paid the interest exceeding the maximum interest rate.
Therefore, the above agreed interest rate exceeds the highest interest rate.