Main Issues
Whether the amount of the deposit for repayment can be disputed in the final appeal
Summary of Judgment
It is a new factual assertion that the amount of the deposit for repayment from the first instance to the original instance is sufficient to satisfy the repayment, and it is a new factual assertion to the final appellate court, which is a legal trial, without pointing out a claim about whether it is sufficient to satisfy the repayment.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 4294Da1046 Delivered on March 29, 1962
Plaintiff-Appellee
Plaintiff
Defendant-Appellant
Defendant
original decision
Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2297 delivered on December 14, 1978
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
(1) Examining the records, the court below recognized each fact such as the original edition and each legal judgment such as the original edition were lawful, and all of them were deemed to have been duly conducted. In addition, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on cancellation of Article 388(2), 544, 545, and 546 of the Civil Act or the Civil Act of misunderstanding of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on cancellation of Article 388(2), 544, 546.
(2) Among the arguments, under Article 1 (1) of the Addenda to the Regulations on the Maximum Interest Rate under Article 1 (1) of the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1972. 2, Aug. 2, 1972), "the interest rate on the loan of money established prior to the enforcement date of this Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30, Aug. 3, 1972) shall be at the rate of interest under the contract within the time limit of the contract within the extent not exceeding 30% per annum." The amount of the principal and interest repaid in this case at issue is short of the amount calculated without complying with the interest rate under the above Addenda. However, the court below recognized the amount of the deposit for repayment according
In the case of this case where it is evident that the court of first instance has not claimed the amount of the instant repayment deposit from the first instance to the original trial, it cannot be viewed as a new factual assertion in the final appeal, which is a legal trial. This is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)