logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.07.13 2017누239
영업정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s final and conclusive criminal punishment against B is a corporation that registered credit business pursuant to the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”), and its Enforcement Decree (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Credit Business Act”).

On September 14, 2011, B, an employee of the Plaintiff, was in violation of Article 9 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Fair Debt Collection of Claims (hereinafter “Collection of Claims”), and was punished pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Collection of Claims Act on the ground that B’s act violates Article 9 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Collection of Claims (hereinafter “Collection of Claims Act”) and thus, was punished pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Collection of Claims Act on the grounds that the act was committed by a debtor, who lives together with the debtor, and was engaged in telephone conversations with the debtor, and was able to take a bath for each other, and then go through the Busan. The judgment of the court below was pronounced that B would not stop the above crime, and that the circumstances leading to the instant crime were not clear and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da710, Apr. 14, 2012).

B. On December 5, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending the entire business against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Credit Business Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 9 subparag. 1 of the Debt Collection Act by assaulting, threatening, or using a deceptive scheme with respect to debt collection (from December 6, 2012 to June 5, 2013).

The disposition of this case is referred to as "the disposition of this case".

The plaintiff is also subject to the imposition of fines for negligence for different reasons on the same day, but the imposition of fines for negligence is disputing the imposition of fines for negligence in a separate procedure in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

arrow