The interest rate in cases where a adjusted bond loses the benefit of time at the highest of bondholders under Article 19 of the Corporate Information Disclosure Promotion Act.

In the case of loss of the benefit of the period of repayment under Article 19 of the Emergency Order on the Stabilization and Growth of the economy due to the validity of the peremptory notice of the bondholder under Article 19 of the Corporate Disclosure Promotion Act, it is limited to the loss of the benefit of the grace period of repayment under the provisions of the same order, not to return the adjusted bond to the bonds prior to the enforcement of the emergency order. Therefore, the interest rate of the adjusted bond shall not exceed 35 percent per month under Article 19 (2) of the Emergency Order.

Article 19 of the Corporate Information Disclosure Promotion Act, Article 19 of the Emergency Decree on Economic Stabilization and Growth

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Park Jong-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Yong-nam Traffic Corporation

Daegu High Court Decision 72Na612 delivered on October 17, 1973

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff-Suspension LLC are examined (the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff-Suspension LLC are to the extent of supplement in the event of the lapse of the submission period).

The judgment on the first ground for appeal

No. 1, and No. 3 through 9 of the court below's testimony and the result of the plaintiff's principal questioning are hard to believe, and the records are examined that each check of No. 2-2 through No. 6, and No. 9 of the defendant's assertion cannot be used as evidence of the plaintiff's assertion, among the allegations that the plaintiff alleged that he lent money to the defendant company by the end of November 1, 1968, excluding 13,60,000 won 2,840,000 won 2,840 won 2,000 won, and 3 or 90 won, and the remaining claims for loans. By determining the value of the evidence, the court below's right to evidence and fact-finding is not justified.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

However, even if the testimony of Nonparty 14-1, 2, 3 and Non-Party 4-6.27 of the lower court’s witness as pointed out in the paper of arguments is examined by the records, it cannot be found that the facts of loans of KRW 2,700,000 on January 1, 1969, KRW 197.25, KRW 1,800,000 on the Plaintiff’s assertion, and KRW 2,258,164 on September 18, 196, and there is no evidence supporting that the lower court loans money specified in the Plaintiff’s principal, and thus, it cannot be indirectly rejected the theory of evidence, including that there is no evidence that there is no other evidence as to the lending of money specified in the Plaintiff’s principal, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality of the omission of evidence judgment or lack of reason. It is without merit. The grounds of appeal No. 1 and the grounds of appeal No. 3 of appeal of the lower court are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below acknowledged that the defendant company with non-party 5 representative interest rate of 13,60,000 won as interest rate of 3% per month until the end of November 1968 and lent 13,60,000 won to the defendant company with non-party 5 representative interest rate of 2,840,000 won per annum 5% per annum, and determined that the defendant company constitutes corporate bonds under the Emergency Order Concerning the Stabilization and Growth of the economy and that the plaintiff completed the report of the bonds because it is not clearly disputed by the defendant, and therefore, it should be viewed that the above amount of interest rate of 16,440,00 won and the interest rate of 13,60,000 won as principal and interest rate of 13,60,000 won as interest rate of 30,000 won per annum 97,000,000 won per annum 964,000 won per annum 96,3064,0600.

However, according to the records, although it can be known that the plaintiff asserted that he reported the bonds after the above urgent order after July 18, 1973 as stated at the time of oral argument of the court below, and that he did not have any separate claim as the defendant, it alone denies the facts that he did not use the funds from the plaintiff, and even according to the evidence Gap evidence No. 14-3, it can be known that the above amount as the loan claimant did not have any description of 13,600,000 won, which is the above loan loan, was 13,60,000 won, and it can not be seen that the defendant did not have any clear objection to the fact that the above amount was 100,000 won as corporate bonds, and it cannot be viewed that the court below did not have any legal principles as 90,000 won for the above amount as 160,000 won, and it can be viewed that the above legal principles as 940,000 won, which was 10,000 won,00 won.

Therefore, the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant is omitted, and the part against the defendant in the original judgment is reversed and remanded. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)