In a case where: (a) the tax authority deemed Company A as the actual debtor of the bonds and excluded the paid interest from deductible expenses for the reason that Company A lent the bonds (bonds) funds issued in its own name to Company B; and (b) in addition to the interest and the amount equivalent thereto, the employer of the funds due to the issuance of the bonds is Company B and actually led to the issuance of the bonds as a result of the complete process of the issuance of the bonds by Company B, whether Company B may be deemed as the actual issuer of the

In a case where: (a) the tax authority deemed Company A as the actual debtor of the bonds and excluded the interest paid therefrom; (b) in addition to the amount of the interest recognized as the actual debtor of the bonds; and (c) in a case where Company B is the user of the funds due to the issuance of the bonds and actually led the issuance of the bonds as a result of the complete process of the issuance of the bonds; (d) the offering of bonds requires a resolution of the board of directors (Article 469 of the Commercial Act); and (e) the issuance of bonds is premised on the issuance of bonds (Article 478 of the Commercial Act); (e) the assembly of bondholders requires a certain procedural requirement in addition to the expression of the actual monetary burden (Article 491 of the same Act), and the issuance of bonds is scheduled to become the actual debtor of the bonds; and (e) the issuance of bonds is planned to become a type of bonds under the corporate law of the debtor of the monetary obligation; and (e) the relationship between Company A and the association is similar to the legal relationship before the issuance of the bonds.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 3 (see current Article 4), Article 18-3 (1) 3 (see current Article 28 (1) 4 (b)), Article 20 (see current Article 52 (1)), Article 43-2 (4) (see current Article 53 (2)), Article 47 (2) (see current Article 89 (5)) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15797, May 16, 1998);

Young Machinery Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

the director of the tax office of Western

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu42743 delivered on October 16, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the bonds of this case were issued under the name of the plaintiff, the actual issuer of the bonds of this case is merely a loan to the non-party 1 corporation, the mother company, for the purpose of issuing the bonds of this case. Under the premise that the plaintiff lent the bonds of this case to the old-end market with a special relationship of this case, 5 billion won (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply), the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the loan of this case was made under Article 43-2 (4) and Article 47 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15797 of May 16, 1998) and the loan of this case 19 billion won to the non-party 4 company's total amount of the bonds of this case to be distributed to the non-party 9 company's company and the company's loan of this case 90 billion won.

2. The offering of bonds by a stock company requires a resolution of the board of directors (Article 469 of the Commercial Act), and the issuance of bonds is premised on the issuance of bonds (Article 478 of the same Act), and a meeting of bondholders (Article 491 of the same Act) requires certain procedural requirements in addition to the expression of simple monetary liability burden, and the issuing company accounts for more than a certain amount of debtor of a monetary obligation and is expected to distribute bonds in the form of bonds in the form of bonds. Thus, as alleged by the plaintiff, even if the actual user of funds due to the issuance of bonds is the old and old and old and the old and old industry actually led the issuance of bonds because they go to the full completion of the process of the issuance of bonds, it is difficult to view that the relationship between the plaintiff and the old and the old and old industry is similar to the legal relationship in the case of title trust or internal association, and the actual application of the bonds issued by the plaintiff industry under the provisions of Articles 14 and 3 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, which provide for the principle of substantial taxation.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the plaintiff is the actual debtor of the bonds of this case and it is just that the plaintiff lent funds created by the issuance of the bonds to the Young-gu industry, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of substantial taxation or in violation of the rules of evidence, and the above judgment below also contains the purport that the Young-gu industry cannot be regarded as the actual debtor of the bonds of this case regardless of whether the plaintiff is aware of the remaining assertion. Thus, there is no error in the omission of judgment as pointed out by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)