Whether a financial institution’s so-called credit management fund and its re-transferable interest arising from corporate facility loan is a depositor or a depositor.

The so-called credit manager's loan due to the facility loan to a financial institution is not a deposit, and therefore, it is not a deposit interest.

Article 3 of the Corporate Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu481 Decided April 23, 1985, 85Nu129 Decided September 10, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu994 Decided March 11, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Commercial Bank Co., Ltd.

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu1179 delivered on July 3, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the long-term financing of a financial institution established for the purpose of supporting large-scale facilities construction, etc. among the Plaintiff bank's loan businesses by its presentation of evidence, which is established for the purpose of supporting the loan to the lender pursuant to the loan agreement. Upon the approval of the financial institution, the financial institution shall appropriate the whole amount of the loan approved to the lender as the subject of the loan, and shall deposit the total amount into the loan management account in advance for 10 percent per annum of the total amount of the loan approved to the borrower, and shall separately receive the loan from the lender as the subject of the loan and the amount of the loan for 3 months as the interest on the loan for the purpose of the financial institution's execution of the loan, unless it obtains the approval of the loan's execution of the loan's loan's execution of the loan's execution of the loan's execution of the loan's execution of the loan's execution of the loan's execution of the loan's execution of the loan's execution of the loan's execution of the loan's execution of the loan's own account.

If the facts are as above, the credit manager's loan from the above facility loan cannot be deemed as a deposit and therefore the refund interest shall not be deemed as a deposit interest (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu481 delivered on April 23, 1985). Thus, the judgment of the court below that the Plaintiff did not have a withholding agent for the above refund interest with the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the above reasons, such as the lawsuit, or the deposit interest. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)