Attached List of Plaintiffs is as shown in the List of Plaintiffs.

Attached list of the defendant is as shown in the attached list.

March 21, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da27488, 2009Gahap121236 decided July 7, 201

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance that ruled against the plaintiffs to order payment below is revoked.

Defendant Han Bank Co., Ltd. shall pay the following money to Plaintiffs 4 (PP: Plaintiff 3), 5 (PP: Plaintiff 4), 6 (PP: Plaintiff 5), and Plaintiff 7 (PP: Plaintiff 6); Defendant Han Bank Co., Ltd. to Plaintiff 9 (PP: Plaintiff 7); Hyundai Development Corporation; Plaintiff 19 (PP: Plaintiff 10 (PP: Plaintiff 8); Korea Bank to Plaintiff 11 (PP: Plaintiff 9); Korea Exchange Bank to Plaintiff 12 (PP: Plaintiff 17); and Korea Exchange Bank to Plaintiff 13 (PP: Plaintiff 10); and the Industrial Bank of Korea to Plaintiff 16 (PP: Plaintiff 11); the amount stated in the item on the calculation of the claim amount in the attached sheet; and the annual interest rate from July 28, 201 to 203, respectively, to the next 40% of the annual interest rate from July 25, 2011 to 40% of the annual interest rate.

2. The appeals filed by Plaintiffs Ansan Trade Co., Ltd., 2, 3, entertainment Korea Co., Ltd, 14, 15, 17, and 20, the remaining appeals filed by the Plaintiffs as set forth in the above paragraph (1) and the remaining appeals filed by Plaintiffs Ansan Trade Co., Ltd., Plaintiffs 10 (Large-board: Plaintiffs 8), 17, and Effective C&P Co., Ltd. are all dismissed.

3. Of litigation costs;

A. Plaintiff 4 (Large-board: Plaintiff 3), Plaintiff 5 (Large-board: Plaintiff 4), Plaintiff 6 (Plaintiff 5), Plaintiff 7 (Plaintiff 6), Plaintiff 9 (Large-board: Plaintiff 7), Plaintiff 10 (Large-board: Plaintiff 8), Plaintiff 11 (Plaintiff 9), Plaintiff 12 (Large-board: Plaintiff 17), Plaintiff 13 (Large-board: Plaintiff 10), Plaintiff 16 (Plaintiff 11), Hyundai Development Corporation, Plaintiff 19 (Large-board: Plaintiff 14); Defendant 14; Defendant 19 (Large-board: Plaintiff 14); Defendant Hansung C&P and Defendant Han Bank, Korean National Bank, Korea Bank, Korea Exchange Bank, and Industrial Bank; and Industrial Bank of Korea respectively; and

B. The costs of appeal between Plaintiffs 2, 3, entertainment Korea Co., Ltd., 14, 15, and 20 and the National Federation of New Bank, Han Bank, and Fisheries Cooperatives are borne by the above Plaintiffs.

C. After an appeal between Plaintiff Ansan Trade Co., Ltd., Plaintiff 17 and Defendant New Bank, and Gyeongnam Bank, the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by all the above Plaintiffs.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. Defendant New Bank Co., Ltd. paid 13,036,924 won to Plaintiff Ansan Trade Co., Ltd. and 20% interest per annum from the day following the date of the judgment of the appellate court to the day of full payment. Defendant Co., Ltd. stated in the calculation table of the claim amount in the attached Table Nos. 2 through 21 to the day of the judgment of the appellate court. Defendant Co., Ltd. paid the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the date of the judgment of the court of first instance to the day of full payment (or from the first instance, Plaintiff Ansan Trade Co., Ltd., Ltd., 93,036,924 won per annum from the day following the date of the judgment of the court of first instance to the day of full payment (or from the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd., 10 won, Plaintiff 17 Co., Ltd., Ltd., 429,6602 won additional unjust enrichment

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part is that the court's explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the removal of "the highest loan interest rate during the loan period" in the 13th and 9th of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the loan interest rate" in the 13th and 9th of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The plaintiff 15 of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives against the plaintiff 15 and the determination thereof

A. The above defendant's defense

Plaintiff 15’s husband Nonparty 1 took over the obligation of the UN loan of this case with exemption from liability, and Defendant Fisheries Cooperatives Federation also consented thereto. Since Plaintiff 15’s damage claim against the above Defendant due to the UN loan of this case was transferred to Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff 15 lost the standing to be a party to the lawsuit of this case.

B. Determination

In a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party has the right to claim performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, to a person who asserts that he/she has the right to claim performance, and the existence of such right is determined within the subject matter of lawsuit. Therefore, the above defendant's defense is without merit,

3. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

(a) deprivation of fixed interest or floating interest options;

According to Article 3(2) of the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions”), a person who obtains a loan from a financial institution may choose whether the loan interest rate would be a fixed interest rate for the loan period or a floating interest rate for which there may be any change in the interest rate during the loan period. However, the Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs of their right to choose a fixed interest rate by explaining to the Plaintiffs as if they were unable to choose a fixed interest rate in the execution of the loan of this case and only loan was made according to the floating interest rate. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by the Plaintiffs.

B) Violation of duty to explain terms of transaction

Article 4(3) of the Terms and Conditions of this case provides that the bank shall explain the items, such as the agreed interest rate and incidental expenses, in a separate document, so that the debtor can know in advance before entering into a loan agreement. According to the above provisions, the defendants are obliged to specify the loan interest rate in the execution of the loan of this case, specify the loan interest rate, specify the loan interest rate, and explain to the plaintiff about how the loan interest rate changes in the future exchange rate. Accordingly, the defendants are liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

C) Violation of duty of disclosure of exchange risk

The Defendants did not properly explain the risks arising from exchange rate fluctuations to the Plaintiffs at the time of the loan of the United Nations. This constitutes tort since they failed to fulfill their duty to explain and protect the Plaintiffs, who are the loan obligor. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by the Plaintiffs.

D) Damages

The mental damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above tort of the defendants shall be calculated as KRW 10,00,000 per 50,000,000,000,000, and the specific amount shall be as stated in the column of consolation money in the calculation table of claim amount.

2) Determination

(a) deprivation of fixed interest or floating interest options;

Article 3(2) of the Terms and Conditions of this case provides that a bank may choose to change the loan interest rate from time to time until the loan obligor completes the obligation to repay the loan (fixed interest rate) or to change the loan interest rate from time to time until the loan obligor completes the obligation to repay the loan, and Article 3(2) of the Terms and Conditions of this case provides that the bank may choose to change the fixed interest rate or change interest rate from time to time in the loan agreement made between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants at the time of the loan of this case. The Plaintiff 9 stated that each credit transaction agreement made between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants may choose a fixed interest or change interest rate in the same word. The Plaintiff 5 is difficult to view the Plaintiff and Defendant Han Bank (hereinafter “Defendant Han Bank”) as “Defendant Han Bank” on May 9, 2006, and the Defendants are not obligated to choose the fixed interest rate or change interest rate in the loan of this case from time when the loan obligor completes the obligation to pay the loan of this case. The Defendants’ loan interest rate and the fixed interest rate in the loan agreement of this case is written.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion, which is premised on the above duty to the defendants, is without merit.

B) Violation of duty to explain terms of transaction

(1) The loan of this case is a loan of this case with a change in the amount of interest and interest due to various factors, such as changes in the global financial market, exchange rate fluctuations, credit rating of Korea and loan banks, etc., and with a significant change in the interest rate, which is a small loan of the general public. In the event the exchange rate and the global financial market change simultaneously occur, there is a risk of expanding more than several times the interest to be paid in Korean won exceeding the anticipated range at the time of the initial contract. In particular, since Korea has experienced experience in the IMF economic crisis around 197, it is necessary to sufficiently explain the contents related to the rapid change in the exchange rate and credit rating in the transaction of foreign currency.

Therefore, financial institutions are obliged to protect customers by clearly explaining the elements, contents, and risks of loan interest in order for customers, who are non-financial experts, to properly evaluate the risk under their own responsibility and make reasonable decisions, taking into account the various circumstances such as transaction purpose, transaction experience, and financial situation of customers when selling such loan products.

(2) Furthermore, we examine the loan interest rate of the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed to set the rate of fluctuation in the contract of the UN Loan, and the agreement on the loan interest rate is not a dispute between the parties as stated in the agreement on the loan interest rate in the attached Table of the UN Loan Interest Rates by Plaintiff.

(A) Plaintiffs who entered into a contract only with Libor interest rate (Plaintiff Ansan Trade, Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3, Entertainment Korea, Plaintiff 14, Plaintiff 15, Plaintiff 17, and Plaintiff 20).

The Defendants stated the interest rate in the contract with the above Plaintiffs as “one month, three months, or six months Libor + 0%,” and indicated only “Libor interest rate.” Thus, the Defendants explained to the above Plaintiffs on the components and contents of the change interest rate, and deemed that the above Plaintiffs were aware of the composition and contents of the change interest rate.

(B) The Plaintiffs who entered into a contract without clearly stating any possible change in interest rates.

① Plaintiffs 4 (Counters. 3), 5 (Counters. 4), 6 (Counters. 5), and 7 (Counters. 6)

There is no evidence to prove that the above plaintiffs did not specify the interest rate in the contract with the defendant Han Bank, and that the defendant Han Bank explained the above plaintiffs the specific interest rate elements.

② Plaintiff 9 (Counter-board: Plaintiff 7)

In making the UN loan with Defendant Han Bank, it is difficult to find out what is the factor to determine MFR, which is an element to be changed in terms of the first contract agreement as to the interest rate in MOR + 1.37%. In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant Han Bank explained to Plaintiff 9 (Plaintiff 7) about the specific interest rate factor to determine MFR (which seems to be consistent with the fact that Plaintiff 1 explained it). However, after the renewal of the contract as of April 7, 2007, it is determined that Defendant Han Bank stated the interest rate in the contract as “1 Libor + 0%” and explained the elements and content of the changed interest rate.

③ Plaintiff 10 (Counter-board: Plaintiff 8)

In the loan of this case with Defendant Woori Bank, it is difficult to find out what is the elements to determine the “standard interest rate”, which are the factors to determine the said “standard interest rate,” because the said Plaintiff stated in the contract as “three-month standard interest rate + 0%” as to the interest rate, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant Woori Bank explained to the said Plaintiff as to the specific elements to determine the said “standard interest rate.”

④ Plaintiffs 11 (Counters. 9), 12 (Counters. 17), and 13 (Counters. 10)

In making the instant international currency loan with Defendant Foreign Exchange Bank, it is difficult to find out what is the factors to determine the “standard interest rate for short-term foreign currency loan”, which is a variable factor, in the contract as to the interest rate in short-term foreign currency loan + 0%, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant Woori Bank explained to the said Plaintiff as to the specific interest rate factors that determine the “standard interest rate for short-term foreign currency loan”.

⑤ Plaintiff 16 (Substitution: Plaintiff 11)

There is no evidence to prove that the above plaintiff did not specify the interest rate in the contract with the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea, and that the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea explained the above plaintiff specific interest rate elements, etc. in the contract.

6. The Plaintiff Hyundai Development Corporation

There is no evidence to prove that the above plaintiff did not specify the interest rate in the contract in relation to the loan of this case with the defendant National Bank, and that the defendant National Bank explained the above plaintiff the specific interest rate elements, etc. (No evidence Nos. 22 that seems to be consistent with the facts that the defendant National Bank explained it shall not be trusted).

7. Plaintiff 19 (Counter-board: Plaintiff 14)

In making the loan of this case with Defendant National Bank, there is no specific statement on the interest rate in the initial contract agreement, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant National Bank explained the above Plaintiff the specific interest rate elements, etc. (No evidence Nos. 23 that seems to be consistent with the facts that it explained them). However, the interest rate after the renewal of the contract from April 14, 2007 was stated as “1.935%” and “1 month Libor + 3.2%” and it is determined that Defendant National Bank explained the possible interest rate elements and contents.

8 Plaintiff Eff&PPP

In making the instant international currency loan with Defendant South Korea bank, it is difficult to find out what is the factors to determine the standard interest rate for foreign currency loans, which are the variableable factors, because the said Plaintiff stated in the contract as “standard interest rate for foreign currency loans + 1.42%” with respect to the interest rate, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant South Korea explained to the said Plaintiff as to the specific interest rate factors that determine the standard interest rate for foreign currency loans.

(3) According to the above facts, the defendants explained to the plaintiffs of the above Paragraph (a) as to the elements constituting the fluctuation rate, etc., and therefore, this part of the plaintiffs of the above Paragraph (a) is without merit. Meanwhile, the defendants did not explain to the plaintiffs of the above Paragraph (b) that the changeable part among the elements constituting the fluctuation rate, but did not explain it, and thus did not explain it, they were infringed upon the right to select the loan product. Thus, the defendants who made the loan of this case to the plaintiffs of the above Paragraph (b) are liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs of the above Paragraph (b) due to the violation of the duty to explain.

(4) Furthermore, if the amount of consolation money is determined in light of the health team, the amount of interest that the Plaintiffs paid in addition to the initial contract due to a sudden change in the interest rate, whether the Defendant Bank explained about the factors of the interest rate that could change at the time of renewal of the contract thereafter, the amount of consolation money is as stated in the column for the cited amount in the table for the calculation of the claim amount in attached Form.

C) Violation of duty to notify the exchange risk

The defendants may recognize the facts that Eul notified the plaintiffs about the exchange risk in light of the whole purport of the arguments in Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 24, 35, 37, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 18, and 13-1 through 38, the witness's testimony, and the results of the personal examination against the non-party No. 2 to the non-party representative director of the plaintiff Ansan Trade Co., Ltd.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. Return of unjust enrichment

1) Plaintiffs 2, 6 (Plag: Plaintiffs 5), 7 (Plag: Plaintiff 6), 9 (Plag: Plaintiff 7), 10 (Plag: Plaintiff 8), 11 (Plag: Plaintiff 9), 16 (Plag: Plaintiff 11), modern industrial development, Plaintiff 19 (Plag: Plaintiff 14), 20, and Flaf C&P

A) The plaintiffs' assertion

Although Article 3(4) of the Terms and Conditions of this case provides that it shall be conducted within a reasonable scope in accordance with sound financial practices that raise and increase the interest rate, such as interest, etc., the Defendants committed an increase in the interest rate of this case beyond a reasonable scope compared to the initial loan interest rate at the time of the loan of this case. The interest rate increase beyond such reasonable scope constitutes an act of offering disadvantages (the act of setting or altering terms and conditions of transaction by unfairly using one’s trade position or giving disadvantages in the course of its implementation) under Article 23(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”). Accordingly, according to the interest rate increase beyond a reasonable scope, the Defendants stated the amount in the column of unlawful enrichment in the calculation table of the amount of the attached claim (However, Plaintiff 10 (the Plaintiff 8) in the form of unjust enrichment (the Plaintiff 12,061,198 won, Plaintiff F&P 76,621,41 won).

B) Determination

The reasoning for this part of the Court’s explanation is as follows: “Determination on Claim for Return of Unjust Enrichment 3-B” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 17th to 20th 2nd ). Therefore, this part’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2) The Plaintiff’s Ansan Trade

A) The Plaintiff’s assertion of trade in Ansan

Defendant New Bank received interest by determining interest rate of 1.56% per annum higher than that of other international currency loans in attracting loans by insurance solicitors. As a result, the interest amounting to KRW 93,036,924 which was unfairly received from Plaintiff Ansan Trade should be returned to Plaintiff Ansan Trade.

B) Determination

The evidence of the plaintiff's submission of trade in Ansan alone is that it is difficult to view that the defendant New Bank calculated the unfairly high interest rate in the case of the UN lending through insurance solicitors and accordingly, it received interest from the plaintiff's Ansan Trade. Thus, the above plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

3) Plaintiff 10 (Counter-board: Plaintiff 8)

A) Plaintiff 10’s assertion

On February 28, 2008, Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8) signed and sealed the documents for extension of the lending period and knew that the lending period has been one year. Around August 14, 2008, Defendant Woori Bank had Defendant Woori Bank sign the documents for extension of the lending period and raised the interest rate unilaterally after increasing the interest rate. From February 2008 to February 2, 2009, it did not raise the interest rate on the borrowing press, and thus, it did not receive more than the interest rate of KRW 16,741,525 from Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8) and unjust enrichment. Accordingly, Defendant Woori Bank is obligated to return the said money to Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8).

B) Determination

(1) On August 14, 2008, Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8) entered into an additional agreement with Defendant South Korea Bank to change the interest rate of the instant UN loan to “three-month base interest rate + 6.03%”, and the fact that Defendant South Korea Bank received interest pursuant to the interest rate prescribed in the said agreement thereafter is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, Defendant South Korea Bank is deemed to have received the interest lawfully in accordance with the agreement with Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8).

Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8) asserts that interest rate should be renewed every year, and that interest should be received according to the interest rate set forth in the first contract, but there is no legal basis and evidence to recognize that interest rate.

Therefore, this part of the allegation by Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8) is without merit.

(2) On February 22, 2008, Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8) and Defendant South Korea Bank renewed the agreement on the loan of this case and entered into a contract with 2.107% of the interest rate on the loan of this case, setting the loan period of one year, and Defendant South Korea Bank raised the additional interest rate on Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8) on July 15, 2008 during the loan period from 2.107% to 2.49% between the parties concerned.

However, the fact that Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8) selected the rate of fluctuation in the loan of this case does not conflict between the parties, and according to the aforementioned evidence, it can be acknowledged that the contract of this case provides that “the bank may change the rate from time to time until the completion of the obligation.” Thus, even during the loan period, Defendant 1 bank has the right to change the rate without the agreement between the parties. Thus, the above increase in the rate of interest cannot be deemed null and void as it is legally changed in accordance with the above terms and conditions (However, the change in the rate of interest should be done within reasonable scope in accordance with sound financial practices that raise and increase the rate of interest, etc. in the case of selecting the rate of interest pursuant to paragraph 2(2)2(the rate of interest) is subject to restrictions under Article 3(4) of the terms and conditions of this case, and it cannot be said that Plaintiff 10 (Plaintiff 8) merely changed the rate of interest to 0.383% on the ground that it violated the above terms and conditions.

Therefore, the above plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4) Plaintiff 17

A) Plaintiff 17’s assertion

On March 17, 2006, Plaintiff 17 set the loan interest rate as “1-month Lior + 2.5%,” and even when the period of loan was extended on March 17, 2008, even though Defendant Gyeongnam Bank decided to apply the above interest rate, it unilaterally raised the additional interest rate on June 17, 2008 from 3% to 3.5%, and received the interest rate of KRW 2,84,000 from June 17, 2008 to March 16, 2009, and thus, Defendant Gyeongnam Bank is obligated to return the said money to Plaintiff 17.

B) Determination

With respect to the interest rate on the loan of this case between the defendant Gyeongnam Bank and the United Nations Loan of this case, the plaintiff 17 entered into an additional agreement that changed the interest rate on March 17, 2008 to "1 Libor + 3.5%" on June 17, 2008 and "1 Libor + 3.5%" on June 17, 2008, and the fact that the defendant Gyeongnam Bank received the interest according to the interest rate under the above agreement thereafter is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the defendant Gyeongnam Bank received the interest lawfully in accordance with the agreement with the plaintiff 17.

Plaintiff 17 asserts that interest shall be renewed every year and that interest shall be received according to the interest rate set forth in the first contract. However, there is no legal basis and evidence to recognize this.

Therefore, the plaintiff 17's above assertion is without merit.

5) Plaintiff Filisung C&P

A) Plaintiff Effective C&P’s assertion

Since the interest rate at the time of the loan of this case was set as the "three-month base interest rate + 1.42%" on December 27, 2006, the Plaintiff C&C and the Defendant Woori Bank applied the interest rate at the time of the loan of this case and the remaining interest rate shall apply to the interest rate at the time of the loan of this case. However, in accordance with the change in the interest rate on the loan of this case, the Defendant Woori Bank received the interest from the Plaintiff C&P and received the interest from the Plaintiff C&P in excess of the total amount of KRW 429,660,602 from September 207 to December 2009, and thus, the Defendant Woori Bank is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff C&P.

B) Determination

The fact that the Plaintiff F&C PP and the Defendant Bank agreed to the interest rate on the instant UN loan to “standard interest rate +1.42%” is not disputed between the parties. As seen earlier, the frame of borrowing is determined by the external environment, unlike additional interest, and is generally included in the standard interest rate by a certain period.

Therefore, since the defendant us bank has the authority to change the standard interest rate if the loan frame changes, it cannot be said that the defendant us made unjust enrichment of the interest that the defendant us has received additionally according to the changed interest rate.

The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Han Bank Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff 4 (P. 3), Plaintiff 5 (P. 4), Plaintiff 6 (P. 5), and Plaintiff 7 (P. 6), Defendant Han Bank to Plaintiff 9 (P. 7), Hyundai Development Corporation, and Plaintiff 19 (P. 14), Korea Bank to Plaintiff 10 (P. 8), Korea Exchange Bank to Korea Co., Ltd.; Korea Exchange Bank to Plaintiff 12 (P. 9), and 13 (P. 10), and Industrial Bank to Plaintiff 16 (P. 11) and Plaintiff 16 (P. 11) and Plaintiff 6 (P. 11), and the amount stated in the table for calculating the amount of claim in the annexed sheet and the remainder of the claim by the above Plaintiffs after the tort, including the remaining amount of claims by the Plaintiffs from the date of the above Plaintiffs, to the extent of 2011 to 30% per annum 40 per annum per annum per annum per annum per annum per annum, respectively.

Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair to have different conclusions, the part against the plaintiffs who ordered payment of the above amount is revoked, and the payment of the amount is ordered, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims for return of unjust enrichment are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

[Attachment List]

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)

1) The term “financial institution’s interest rate” refers to the interest rate that serves as the basis for determining the loan interest rate. Ordinary banks will raise funds through time deposits, transferable deposits, bank debentures, etc. In that context, taking into account the average cost of financing. Since then, given the operating profitability, the public notice interest rate attached with a certain frame is announced and used as a loan interest rate. Since a large financial institution is a financial institution with a low credit rating, the amount of financing interest rate is lower, the MOR is bound to vary for each financial institution (NAN knowledge prior to each financial institution).