Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A’s non-registered loan brokerage business is run.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is a person who has registered and actually operates a credit business under the name of Company C, which is the name of Company C, and Defendant B is the E company.

Defendant

Defendant A in violation of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, did not register with the authorities, and, around October 23, 2013, by mediating a loan contract for lending KRW 700 million to H from the Songpa-gu Seoul F and the third floor G office around October 23, 2013, Defendant A received KRW 70 million from the said H as a loan fee for investment advisory fees.

As a result, Defendant A runs a loan brokerage business without registering it, and received a brokerage commission from the other party to the loan.

B. Defendants in collusion with the Defendants on the violation of the Interest Limitation Act, and around October 23, 2013, leased KRW 700 million to Defendant B from the Songpa-gu Seoul F and the third floor G office to Defendant A’s brokerage, and received 3% interest per month, which exceeded the statutory maximum interest rate.

2. The premise of this part of the facts charged on the crime of violating the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users due to Defendant A’s non-registered loan brokerage business is that Defendant A engaged in loan brokerage business.

Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) provides that “loan brokerage business means performing loan brokerage business,” and the term “business” refers to continuing to repeat the same act. Whether such act constitutes a “business” should be determined in accordance with social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as (i) continuity of brokerage, (ii) continuity of business, and (iii) the purpose of the act, and (iv) size, frequency, and type of the act, regardless of whether the act was simply equipped with necessary human or physical facilities.

Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8449 Decided September 27, 2013