logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2012.11.29 2012고단8967
대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

1. Any person who intends to operate a unregistered credit business shall file for registration with the competent authority having jurisdiction over the relevant place of business by each place of business;

Nevertheless, on August 201, 201, the Defendant extended a loan of KRW 8 million to D without registering with the competent authority, and extended a loan of KRW 100,000 to D, one million as daily interest, and one million won as of the same day, and the Defendant engaged in a non-registered credit business for three days by again lending a loan of KRW 100,000 to the competent authority.

2. Where any unregistered credit service provider and any unregistered credit service provider lend a loan at a rate exceeding the restriction rate, they shall not collect interest at an rate exceeding 30/100 per annum.

Nevertheless, the Defendant loaned KRW 9 million to D as stated in the preceding paragraph, and then loaned KRW 9,40,000 after three days to repay the total of KRW 9,40,00,000 to the extent that the interest rate is above the above 30%, and loaned the loan exceeding the statutory interest rate.

2. The main text of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users provides that "the term "credit business" means running a business of lending or arranging money, and the term "business" here refers to the continuous repeating of the same act. Whether it falls under this case shall be determined according to ordinary social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as lending or brokerage of money, repetition and continuity of brokerage, existence of business, purpose and scale of the act, the number of times and the manner of the act, regardless of whether the person or material facilities required therefor are simply equipped.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant is deemed to have borrowed KRW 9 million to D on August 23, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7277, Oct. 23, 2008). The record reveals that the Defendant was paid KRW 9,40,000,00, including interest KRW 400,000,000,000,000,000 won after August 23, 2011.

arrow