Whether a financial institution’s credit management funds and interest on loans for corporate facility funds constitutes a depositor or an interest recipient (negative)

The facility funds to be appropriated in the credit management account of an enterprise is merely a book-processing as if the bank did not implement the loan in order to ensure the safety of follow-up management of the loan, but it is merely a case where the loan is executed to the enterprise and the amount is deposited in the deposit, and it is not merely a conditional loan that is conducted under the condition that the loan is suspended. Therefore, the credit management funds cannot be viewed as a bank deposit of an enterprise that is the borrower. Therefore, the interest on the loan cannot be viewed as the interest on the deposit.

Article 3 of the Corporate Tax Act

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

Busan Tourist Hotel Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu72 delivered on March 25, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

On the ground of the judgment below, the plaintiff newly built the hotel of the plaintiff corporation on the ground of Gangnam-gu in Seoul ( Address omitted) in 1981, 1982, and borrowed the facility fund of KRW 1,770,000,000,000,000 from each of the transportation departments and 1,140,000,000,000. The above facility fund was for the purpose of supporting the fund of the facility project requiring long-term financing in accordance with the agreement of the Financial Group, and if a financial institution approves the loan pursuant to the agreement of the Financial Group, it is necessary to include the loan fund in the loan management account in the name of the borrower once and receive interest on the whole amount from March 1981, 195, and after ascertaining that the funds required for the construction of the facility, which is the purpose of the loan, are due to a statement of using the fund and other documentary evidence, and thus, it was determined that the remaining amount was 1,000,000,0000.

On the other hand, if the facts are as determined by the court below, the facility funds, which were appropriated in the Plaintiff's credit management account, were not executed by the bank that approved the loan in order to ensure the safety of the post-management of the loan, but are in the form of account settlement as if the loan was executed and the amount was deposited in the deposit. The loan management funds cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff's deposit, which is the borrower, since it is merely a conditional loan with a condition of suspension to execute the loan only when a certain condition is fulfilled. Accordingly, the interest on the deposit cannot be viewed as the interest on the loan (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu481 delivered on April 23, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu287 delivered on September 10, 1985).

The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 3(2) of the Corporate Tax Act or Article 3 of the Interest Limitation Act.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

With respect to KRW 10,224,00, which was calculated by the Plaintiff as a loss from the sale of securities in the business year 1982, the court below rejected the claim of the lawsuit that the court below was paid as a creditor-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

3. 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 judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju