beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
The grounds alleged by the defendant in the trial while filing an appeal by the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the defendant in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is re-examineed together with the allegations by the parties, the judgment of the court of first instance that cited
Therefore, this court's reasoning is that the reasoning for this case is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of a part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of
[Revision] Each “A” of the first instance judgment Nos. 7, 14, 15, 18, and 8 shall be raised to “E”.
Under Article 17 of the judgment of the first instance court, the Regulations on Inspection and Sanctions of Financial Institutions, which took effect on March 22, 2016, provide that “On the other hand, the current rules on the enforcement of the Regulations on the Inspection and Sanctions of Financial Institutions (hereinafter “the Regulations on the Enforcement of the Amendment”) stipulates that “any person who has a substantial final decision-making right in consideration of the nature of business and the degree of involvement in decision-making,” with respect to the detailed standards which determine whether a person is a person,” but the above provisions on the implementation of the amendments cannot be deemed as applicable to the disposition of this case relating to loans that were granted prior to the enforcement date, and Article 52(1)1 of the Regulations on the Enforcement of the Amendment defines “actor” as “a person who has a substantial control over illegal and unfair business affairs,” and thus, the interpretation of the regulations on the implementation of the amendment cannot be readily concluded as a person who has a final decision-making right.” However, whether a person has a substantial final decision-making right is an offender or not.”
Part 18 of the judgment of the first instance shall be in accordance with the last 18 to 19 pages.