(a) Where the representative director of a mutual savings bank imports or borrows money under the name of a credit cooperative in violation of Article 17 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, and manages and uses it as so-called installment, whether the cash, which is the counterpart account for the overseas debt, is the profit of the corporation (affirmative);

B. In the case where the attribution of cash, which is the counterpart account of the non-performing debt that is the profit of the mutual savings and finance company, is not clear as above, the disposition of income as bonus to the representative (affirmative)

A. Whether a certain income is taxable income or not shall be deemed as taxable income in light of the economic aspect, and it is reasonable to determine that there is a tax-bearing force, and as such, legal assessment of the causal relationship in which the income is derived should be lawful and effective. Thus, if a representative director of a mutual savings and finance company imports or borrows the money under the name of a credit cooperative, and instead manages and uses it as so-called off debt without keeping it in the account book pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Mutual Savings and Finance Act, even if such borrowing act violates the procedure for borrowing funds under Article 17 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Act and becomes invalid under private law, the cash, the other party to the loan account, shall be deemed as the corporate income of the credit cooperative once it enters into the credit cooperative.

B. As long as the cash, which is the counterpart account of the foreign debt, which is the revenue of the mutual savings and finance company, is not recorded in the account book of the credit safe, it shall be deemed to have been discharged out of the company, barring any special circumstances. Thus, if it is not clear that the ownership is attributed, it shall be deemed to have been disposed of as a bonus to the representative pursuant to Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 94-2(1) of

(a) Article 2(1)1, Article 9(1) and (2) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 17(2)2 of the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act, Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 9-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7883 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Dong Branch) 79Nu188 delivered on August 28, 1979 (Gong1979,12199) 81Nu136 delivered on October 25, 1983 (Gong1983,1752) 83Nu123 delivered on May 28, 1985 (Gong1985,932) b. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu556 delivered on September 9, 196 (Gong1986,1401) 89Nu152 delivered on February 13, 190 (Gong190,680), 190Nu16319 delivered on December 16, 196 (Gong6819, Dec. 26, 199)

Attorney Lee Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the bankrupt-do Mutual Savings and Finance Company

Head of Dong Busan District Office

Busan High Court Decision 89Gu1193 delivered on May 8, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 was the representative of the non-party 1 company and the non-party 1 company's 47 percent of its shares as well as the non-party 1 company's 45 percent of its shares as the non-party 2 company's profits from the above non-party 9 company's loans under the non-party 1 company law. The court below determined that the non-party 2 company's profits from the non-party 9 company's 1 company's profits from 8 years to 198 company's profits from the above non-party 1 company's borrowing of profits from the non-party 1 company's 9 company's profits from the above 19 company's profits and losses from the non-party 2 company's borrowing of profits from the non-party 1 company's 8 year-end company's profits. The above non-party 2 company's profits from the non-party 1 company's profits from the above 9 company's profits and losses from the 198 company's profits.

However, the term "gross income under the Corporate Tax Act" means the total amount of profits generated from transactions which increase the net assets of a corporation. Here, the term "income" means the amount of income acquired by providing goods or services to another person and all other economic benefits attributed to the corporation concerned. Whether a taxable income is taxable income or not shall be deemed to have a taxable capacity in light of the economic aspect and thus, it is sufficient to determine that there is a taxable capacity, and the legal assessment of the causal relationship in which the income was gained is legitimate and effective (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu188, Aug. 28, 1979; 81Nu136, Oct. 25, 1983; and 83Nu123, May 28, 1985, etc.). It is not clear that the non-party 2, etc., the representative director of the non-party company, who was the representative director of the non-party company, obtained the amount in the name of the non-party company, or obtained it from the non-party company under its private law, as stated 17.

Therefore, the court below determined that the loan of the non-party company was in violation of Article 17 of the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act and thus null and void as the loan of the non-party company is null and void. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the income of the non-party company under the Corporate Tax Act, and the ground for appeal

For the same reason, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)