The costs of appeal shall be borne by the director of the tax office.

With reference to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below generally stated that ① the Korea 00 Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea 00 Bank”) extended money to customers by taking credit guarantee certificates issued by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, the Korea Housing Finance Corporation, the Korea Housing Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Credit Guarantee Fund”), and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) as collateral; ② the terms and conditions of credit guarantee institutions applicable to the above credit guarantee include: (i) the principal amount not exceeding the guaranteed amount multiplied by the guaranteed amount; (ii) the amount of the guaranteed amount of the guaranteed amount of the guaranteed amount multiplied by the agreed interest rate up to the date of the performance of the guaranteed amount; and (iii) the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. and Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. concluded individual agreements with the Korea 00 Bank Co., Ltd. for each loan product included the principal amount of the guaranteed amount as the guaranteed obligation; and (iv) the guaranteed amount collected from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co.

Then, the lower court determined that it was unlawful for the director of the tax office to have included the interest income in the gross income, on the ground that the total amount of a guaranteed obligation under a credit guarantee contract clearly specified the principal and interest interest in accordance with the guarantee ratio, and the payment by a credit guarantee agency, etc. was not applicable to the provisions on the appropriation of performance under the Corporate Tax Act, on the grounds that the provisions on the appropriation of performance under the Corporate Tax Act are not applicable.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal nature of a credit guarantee contract and the legal doctrine on satisfaction of payment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.