The case holding that a loan for consumption is a loan for money borrowed in the form of a loan

In a case where a loan of KRW 2,415,00 for 105 for 105 for 105 for 00 for 00 for 000 for 000 for 00,000 for 2,415 for 00 for 00, not for 00 for 100 for 100 for 00 for 00, not for 00 for 100 for 100 for 100,000 for 200 for 10,000 for 00 for 10

Article 1 of the Interest Limitation Act, Article 598 of the Civil Code

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu434 Decided March 13, 1984

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Na586 delivered on December 23, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the documentary evidence at the time, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff lent 2,415,00 won to Defendant 1, under Defendant 2's joint and several sureties of March 22, 1977, at the time, the amount equivalent to the market price of 105 Mada (Mamaro 80 kilograms), which was equivalent to the market price of 105 Mamama (Mamamamama 80 kilograms), and the repayment method was returned to the same amount as the same amount as the repayment method, and that the return date of 30 percent per annum was agreed on December 30 of the same year

However, through the records, the testimony of the non-party 1 and the defendant 1's questioning result of the non-party 1,80,000 won, which were rejected by the court below, were converted from the plaintiff 1 to 00,000, and Gap evidence No. 1 was prepared by adding interest to 105,000,000 won. The testimony of the non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 4, and non-party 5, which were believed by the court below, did not lend 105,000 won to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's witness's non-party 3's testimony.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)