초과지급된 이자에 대해 발생한 법정이자의 신규 대출금채무에 대한 충당 여부 -일본 最高裁判所平成25年4月11日第一小法廷判決을 중심으로- = Would statutory interest incurred in connection with the overpayment interest have priority to be appropriative to the capital of overpayment than other monetary debts?

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Many legal problems have been raised, where a debtor of a continuous cash loan contract paid back a creditor with a higher interest beyond the prescription of The Interest Restriction Law. And the Japanese Supreme Court has judged many cases concerning those legal issues. For example, the Japanese Supreme Court judged that a creditor(loan supplier) who received interest beyond the restriction of The Interest Restriction Law is considered as a beneficiary in bad faith unless there are special circumstances, and thereby he should return the excessive profits with statutory interest as an unjust enrichment. In another case, the Japanese Supreme Court judged if the debtor paid higher interest than the prescription of the law, the overpaid interest should be appropriated to the capital of monetary debts. And if there remains still overpayment after the appropriation, it should be appropriated to another monetary debts newly occurred. By the way, this case introduced in this article is about problems hitherto never have been judged by the Japanese Supreme Court. The legal issues of this case are two. First, could the statutory interest on the overpaid interest be appropriated to the monetary debts that occurred newly? Second, if it’s approved, does the statutory interest have the priority to be appropriated to the overpaid interest? The Japanese Supreme Court ecided that if the basic contract of the continuous cash loan includes the appropriation agreement on the overpaid interest, without particular reason, the statutory interest on the overpaid interest should be appropriated first to the monetary debts newly occurred, and than, the overpaid interest itself should be appropriated to the remaining balance of new monetary debts.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 권경은, "일본의 폭리적 금전소비대차계약에 관한 대응 - 2008. 6. 10.자 최고재판소 판결을 중심으로 -" 대한변호사협회 (421) : 138-157, 2011

2 서민석, "선량한 풍속 기타 사회질서에 반하여 현저하게 고율로 정해진 이자약정의 효력 및 이미 지급된 초과이자의 반환청구권" 한국사법행정학회 16 : 2007

3 양창수, "공서양속에 반하는 이자약정에서 임의로 지급된 초과 이자의 반환청구"

4 김계순, "고율의 이자약정의 효력 - 대법원 2007. 2. 15. 선고, 2004다50426 전원합의체 판결 -" 민주주의법학연구회 (36) : 259-283, 2008

5 한삼인, "고율의 이자약정과 반사회성" 국가고시학회 52 (52): 2007

6 宮本幸裕, "過払金返還請求訴訟における充当方法について" 79 (79): 2007

7 石松勉, "過払金返還請求権の消滅時効の起算点について―最高裁平成21年1月22日第一小法廷判決(裁判所時報1476号2頁、金融･商事判例1310号54頁)―" 54 (54): 2009

8 廣瀬美佳, "過払金返還請求事件－最三判平成19･2･13" (1274) : 2007

9 持田明, "過払金返還請求事件(2)―最三小判平19･2･13についての検討など―" (45) : 2007

10 中村肇, "過払金返還請求と七〇四条前段の利息の処理方法" 49 : 2014

11 下村信江, "過払金について発生した法定利息の充当の可否及び方法" 148 (148): 2013

12 谷本圭子, "継続的な金銭消費貸借取引に係る基本契約が過払金充当合意を含む場合における、過払金について発生した民法704条前段所定の利息を新たな借入金債務に充当することの可否及びその充当方法" (2217) : 2014

13 岡林伸幸, "継続的な金銭消費者取引において発生した過払金が新たな借入金債務に充当される順番" (13) : 2013

14 鎌野邦樹, "第一貸付けにおける制限超過利息と第二貸付けへの充当" 36 : 2008

15 小野秀誠, "第一の貸付けに対して過払金が発生し、その後、第二の貸付けに係る債務が発生した場合と、過払金の同債務への充当" (1978) : 2007

16 中村也寸志, "最高裁判決による過払金返還請求訴訟の帰着" (1863) : 2009

17 滝澤孝臣, "平成13年度主要民事判例解説" (1096) : 2002

18 水本浩, "大法廷判決巡歴5 利息制限法―その一" (205) : 1973

19 吉田克己, "商工ローンにおける信用保証料のみなし利息性と過払金の元本充当" (282) : 2004

20 竹内俊雄, "同一の貸主と借主との間での過払金債権の他の債務への充当の可否および悪意の受益者による過払金債務返還時に適用される利息―最三判平成19․2․13本誌本号28頁―" (1266) : 2007

21 吉田克己, "反復継続する貸付における制限超過利息の過払金と後の借入金債務への充当" 37 : 2008

22 尾島茂樹, "制限超過利息返還請求権に関する一考察―時効期間･法定利率を中心として" (36) : 2006

23 川角由和, "制限超過利息を受領した貸金業者が貸金業規制法との関係で民法七〇四条の｢悪意の受益者｣として推定される場合" 37 : 2008

24 高木多喜男, "制限超過利息の返還請求" (47) : 1975

25 末川博, "制限超過利息の任意支払と残存元本充当適否" 48 (48): 1963

26 水田耕一, "利息制限法に関する最高裁の新判例(続)－制限超過利息の支払と元本への充当" 334 : 1964

27 "判決速報｢継続的な金銭消費者貸借取引に係る基本契約が過払金充当合意を含む場合における、過払金について発生した民法704条前段所定の利息を新たな借入金債務に充当することの可否およびその充当方法｣" (1986) : 2014

28 中村也寸志, "判例解説" 57 (57): 2005

29 川井健, "債務者が任意に支払った利息制限法所定の制限をこえる利息･損害金は当然に残存元本に充当される" 91 (91): 1974