Whether the credit management funds and the refund interest accrued from the corporate facility loan of a financial institution constitute a depositor or a depositor (negative)

The so-called "credit management fund account" opened by a financial institution for the lending of corporate facility funds and the management of such funds has not yet been implemented but only approved for the lending of facility funds, if the loan was made in the same form and appearance as the deposit was made in the name of the borrower, and only if the loan was verified as having been made in accordance with the progress of the construction of the facilities, the loan was made in advance at a fair and fair rate and the corresponding amount was refunded at the same time. As one of the follow-up management system of the financial institution to secure the provision of facility funds and prevent the diversion of the political facility funds of low interest, its form and appearance appears to be the form and appearance as the deposit, but its substance is merely a manipulation of technical books from policy needs, and thus, it cannot be said that the borrower's deposit is not the deposit of the lender, and therefore, the refund interest is the deposit interest.

Article 3 of the Corporate Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu481 delivered on April 23, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu287 delivered on September 10, 1985

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu816 delivered on January 29, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the loan management account for the loan of facilities transacted between the plaintiff bank and the non-party 1 corporation, etc. for a long-term period of time. Since it is a policy bank account prepared for the main supply of funds for facilities construction for a long-term period of time, financial institutions established pursuant to the agreement of the Financial Group and the borrower, and if a financial institution approves the loan of facilities funds, it shall appropriate the whole amount approved as loan in the subject of loan even though it does not actually provide the loan, and shall deposit the total amount into the loan management fund account of the borrower with 10% interest per annum on the whole amount approved as the loan, and if the construction of facilities is completed, it shall obtain the loan of funds for the purpose of the loan, and it shall not obtain the loan of funds from the borrower in the form of an annual loan management fund and its actual amount of funds borrowed from the loan management fund of 40% prior to the completion of the loan and shall also obtain the loan of funds in the form of 5% interest on the loan of the borrower.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that held the tax imposition disposition of this case as unlawful is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 3 of the Non-founded Grounds and Interest Restriction Act, and Article 3 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act. The arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)