2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

On March 26, 2014, the Defendant determined that there is a reason to suspect the accuracy or truth of USD 500 per ton, which is the import declaration price of 20 ton (hereinafter “the goods of this case”) imported by the Plaintiff, and determined the customs value as USD 1,136.89 per ton, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of customs duties of USD 69,842,430 per ton.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

In this regard, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case, but lost (Seoul District Court 2015Guhap206), and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Nu60152) rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment on review") and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2016Du38020) dismissed the appeal due to mental failure and became final and conclusive.

Whether a new suit is lawful

A. The plaintiff's argument that the decision subject to a review is inconsistent with the principle of excessive prohibition, ② The disposition of this case violates the principle of excessive prohibition, ② the fact that it cannot trust the investigation into the Western mountainous district price of the Korea Agriculture and Food Trade Corporation, ③ the dutiable value determined by the defendant constitutes arbitrary processing price, ④ the fact that there is no difference in the price of book and the rise, ⑤ the fact that there is no difference in the price of book and the rise, ⑤ the fact that it violates the principle of trust protection, which is the ground for a review under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. According to Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, where a judgment is omitted with respect to a material fact that may affect the judgment, the final judgment finalized shall be reviewed.