The validity of a quasi-consumption loan contract in which interest exceeding the interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act is included in the principal, and the order of appropriation of performance in the absence of an agreement

With respect to a quasi-consumption lending contract in which the interest on the monthly 10% is continuously included in the principal, the part exceeding the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act is null and void, and if there is no agreement concerning the order of appropriation of performance, it will be appropriated in the order of

Article 2 of the Interest Limitation Act, Article 479, and Article 605 of the Civil Act

65Da1368 decided Sep. 21, 1965 (Civil Act Article 479(8) 428, 1663) 65Da2229 decided Oct. 28, 1969 (Civil Act Article 479(10), 428 Ka818, 173 17.25)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jinju Branch of Busan District Court (Law No. 4293 Residents218)

This case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant et al. jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff money of 40,000 won with a 20 percent rate per annum from January 27, 4293 to the full payment. The costs of lawsuit are jointly and severally borne by the defendant et al. in the first and second instances. The defendant et al. seek a judgment in the place of order.

The purport of the statements by both parties is that the plaintiff borrowed 90,000 won and 40,000 won from the deceased non-party 1 to the deceased non-party 1 of the short-term period of 4292, and that the above deceased non-party did not repay 130,000 won of the transplant month. As such, the above deceased non-party did not repay 90,000 won of 90,000 won of 194,000 won of 44,000 won of 94,000 won of 94,000 won of 94,000 won of 94,000 won of 94,000 won of 194,000 won of 9,000 won of 194,000 won of 3,000 won of 194,000 won of 19,000 won of 94,000 won of 2,000.

As evidence method, the plaintiff submitted the evidence No. 1 and invoked the testimony of the court below witness Kim Tae-sung, and the defendant No. 1 denies the establishment of the evidence No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 and No. 3 are admitted.

The evidence No. 1, which is not disputed in the establishment of an Ansan-gu shall be proved by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff loans gold 90,000 won and gold 40,000 won to the deceased non-party 1 on two occasions, with an agreement of 10,000 won per transplant. Considering the testimony of non-party 2 and the whole purport of the parties' arguments of November 20, 4291, the plaintiff lent gold 60,000 won to the non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 1 on April 20, 4292, with an agreement of 10,000 won per month and 30,000 won per annum for the principal and 90,000 won for the above principal to be refunded to the deceased non-party 1 on October 13, 190, the part which was concluded with an agreement of 150,000 won for the purpose of transplantation to be converted to the extent of 15,06,06,00,000.

In addition, the fact that the plaintiff received gold 90,000 won from the defendant on January 27, 4293 is the person who is the person, so that there is no agreement between the parties as to the order of appropriation for payment, and if the agreed rate exceeds the transplant restriction age, the excess portion shall be null and void, and if the agreed rate exceeds the transplant restriction age, it shall be appropriated in accordance with the prescribed rate, and it shall be less than 90,000 won even if the sum of the principal and interest on the claim in both traps exceeds the amount of 90,000 won, it is apparent that the plaintiff's claim of this case is extinguished as it is received

Therefore, even if the plaintiff is deemed to have entered into a loan agreement with the defendant on January 27, 4293 and March 30 of the same year with the maturity of the principal 40,000 per annum on January 27, 4293, under the premise that the plaintiff had a credit, the contract shall also be null and void as long as the credit has already been extinguished as the credit has already been paid to the defendant, etc. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the principal is without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as it is reasonable in its purport, and this is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles

Judges Lee Jong-il (Presiding Judge)