logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.04.12 2012고정1995
대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 5,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is engaged in credit business with the trade name of Daejeon Jung-gu D, and Defendant B is engaged in credit card size lease business with the trade name of Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon.

Defendant

A The victim F, who requires urgency such as Smarket Operation Fund, was allowed to report the "credit card size loan" advertisement posted in the cross-market newspaper. After considering the status of the sales and repayment ability of Smarket operated by the victim, if the lending act is conducted after considering the victim's awareness of the sales status and repayment ability, A, the victim's Smarket set up a card size, such as SP, etc., and the defendant B conspired to manage the victim's deposit passbook, and deliver the principal and interest every day to the defendant A.

1. Where a credit service provider in violation of the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users Act lends a loan to an individual or a small-scale corporation as determined by the Presidential Decree, it shall not exceed 39/100 per annum;

Nevertheless, at the Dong-gu Daejeon Office on September 21, 201, the Defendants conspired to lend KRW 30 million to the victim with a limit of KRW 28,800,000 as a prior interest, and agreed to receive KRW 342,00 per day for 100 days the principal and interest (interest rate of 128.1%) and paid KRW 342,00 per day for 30 days until October 20, 201, and received interest exceeding the statutory interest rate of KRW 342,00 per day, such as on the list of crimes, and received interest.

Defendant

B asserts that there was no awareness of interest rate, but according to each police interrogation protocol on Defendant B, Defendant B stated that Defendant B was aware that he lent much amount to the victim and received the principal and interest per day. Even if it did not calculate specific interest rate, it is not true that the interest rate exceeds the statutory interest rate.

arrow