Whether the receipt by a proxy of credit card holders of cash services within the limits of using a foreign card lending service apparatus established in a foreign country constitutes "capital transactions with respect to the creation of claims under a monetary lending contract between residents and non-residents" as prescribed by the Foreign Exchange Control Act (negative)

In a case where a member of a credit card company presents a credit card to a foreign credit card issuer affiliated with the domestic credit card company or receives cash services from a foreign country using an automatic cash payment instrument installed by the credit card company, it is reasonable to see that the legal relationship between the member of the credit card company and the resident is also a monetary lending contract between the resident and the domestic credit card issuing company. Therefore, this does not fall under the "transaction on the occurrence of claims under a monetary lending contract between the resident and the non-resident" under subparagraph 1 of Article 21 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (amended by Act No. 5040 of Dec. 29, 1995) and it is not necessary to obtain the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy. In addition, the defendants are not the member of the credit card company and the person who received cash services on behalf of the member, and the defendants' act does not constitute the so-called case of payment under Article 18 subparagraph 3 of

Articles 21(1)1 and 30(1)9 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (amended by Act No. 5040 of Dec. 29, 1995)

Supreme Court Decision 97Do992 delivered on October 10, 1997 (the same purport)

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 95No8197 delivered on August 13, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a credit card member presents a credit card to a foreign credit card issuing company affiliated with the domestic credit card issuing company or receives cash services from a foreign country using an automatic cash payment instrument installed by the credit card company, it is reasonable to see that the legal relation between the credit card member and the resident is also a monetary lending contract between the domestic credit card issuing company and the resident. Therefore, this does not fall under the "transaction on the occurrence of a claim under a monetary lending contract between the resident and the non-resident" under Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (amended by Act No. 5040 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act. In addition, it does not mean that the defendants are not the member of the credit card company but the person who received cash services on behalf of the member of the credit card company, and the defendants' act does not constitute the so-called subject payment under Article 18 subparagraph 3

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants on the same purport is just, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to permitted matters under Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)