Whether the so-called "credit management fund" and the re-transferee of a financial institution's corporate facility loan constitute a depositor or a depositor.

The so-called "credit management fund account" established by a financial institution to lend corporate facility funds and to manage them has not yet been implemented, but if only the approval for the loan of facility funds has been granted, the loan was immediately executed and the same form and appearance has been deposited again. In other words, the loan was actually loaned at a fair rate only when the confirmation of facilities has been obtained according to the progress of the construction, and the loan management system is one of the follow-up management system of the financial institution to secure the provision of facility funds and to prevent the diversion of the political facility funds of low interest. However, the form and appearance of the financial institution is the type and appearance of the loan management system of the financial institution to secure the provision of facility funds and to prevent the diversion of the political facility funds of low interest. However, it is merely a technical book manipulation from policy needs, and it cannot be said that it is a deposit interest.

Article 3 of the Corporate Tax Act

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jin-jin et al.)

Head of Jeju Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 83Gu97 delivered on May 29, 1984

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 recognized that the loan of facilities transacted between the plaintiff bank and the non-party 1 corporation for the purpose of supporting facilities construction for a long-term and large amount of money, which is established pursuant to the agreement between the financial institution and the borrower. If the financial institution approves the loan, it shall not actually provide the whole amount of the loan approved, but shall be deposited into the loan account in the name of the borrower, and it shall receive 10 percent interest per annum on the whole amount of the loan and 3 months separately from the loan interest on the loan of the lender. The court below did not err in the law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the fair loan of facilities as stated above, since the loan of the financial institution was not executed for the purpose of supporting facilities construction for a long-term and non-party 1 corporation for the purpose of using the loan without using the loan funds for the purpose of using the loan funds for the purpose of using the loan funds for the purpose of using the loan funds to the extent that the loan funds were not actually used for the purpose of using the loan funds for the purpose of using the loan funds to be refunded.

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 Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)