2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 151,485,440, value-added tax 204,150,040, additional tax 150,99,970, imposed on the Plaintiff on November 25, 2009, shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the pertinent part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance (from the second to the last one; and (b) the details of the disposition of the first instance); and (c) thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion that the shopping mall of this case is not the actual operator

The Plaintiff only carried out the business of return to Nonparty 1 (foreign seller), who is a foreign seller, and Nonparty 1 (foreign seller) is the actual operator of the shopping mall of this case. Thus, the shopping mall of this case constitutes “transaction in which a domestic buyer purchases and imports goods directly from a foreign seller’s cyber mall, etc.” under Article 1-3 subparag. 1 of the Notice. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise that the actual operator of the shopping mall of this case constitutes “import shopping mall transaction” under Article 1-3 subparag. 4 of the Notice, on the premise that he is the Plaintiff.

2) The allegation that procedural errors exist in the disposition of this case

In the instant disposition, the Defendant merely stated only the final tax amount in a tax payment notice on the principal tax and additional tax, and did not fully state the tax base and the basis for calculation of the amount of tax. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful against the principle of due process, etc.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) recognised facts

The contents to be explained by the court concerning this part are the same as the contents of the 3rd judgment of the court of first instance from the 12th to the 17th judgment. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff is an operator or an importer of the shopping mall of this case

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 19(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that "any person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be liable to pay customs duties." The main text of Article 19(1) of the same Act provides that "in cases of goods, the import declaration of which has been made, the owner of the goods who imports the goods is liable to pay customs duties." "the owner of the goods, who imports the goods," who is a person liable to pay customs duties, means the actual owner of the goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8442, Apr. 11, 2003).

On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement. Thus, in the case where a taxation disposition was made on the grounds that the nominal owner who imported the goods and the actual owner who imported the goods are different, the burden of proving that the other party

B) The operator and importer of the shopping mall of this case

In this case, even if a domestic consumer directly orders goods from a foreign seller and delivers them under the name of the domestic consumer, and some auxiliary acts related to the convenience of domestic consumers or the promotion of sales and return of goods by a domestic seller exist, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the actual owner of the goods imported is a domestic consumer, not a domestic consumer. However, even if a domestic consumer directly imports goods from a foreign seller, if the domestic consumer directly imports them from a foreign seller and then sells them again, the actual owner of the goods imported may be deemed a domestic consumer. However, in order to constitute such a case, the actual owner of the goods imported may be deemed a domestic consumer. However, even if a domestic consumer actually controls and manages a foreign seller, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a separate domestic consumer transaction between the domestic consumer and the domestic consumer, and thus, if it is not proven that there was a separate domestic consumer transaction between the domestic consumer and the domestic consumer.

According to the facts acknowledged above, the Internet shopping mall in this case was established only for domestic consumers and was paid in Korea for cash settlement, return and refund of sold goods, the returned goods were resold or disposed of domestically by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff used a considerable portion of the sales proceeds as its real estate purchase fund, etc. However, it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Plaintiff is an operator of the shopping mall in this case and an importer of the shopping mall in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the domestic consumer in this case directly imported functional health foods, etc. from abroad as its owner.

Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the actual operator and the actual operator of the shopping mall of this case are the plaintiff is illegal.

2) Whether procedural errors exist in the disposition of this case

A) When the principal tax and the additional tax are to be imposed upon a single tax notice, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof shall be stated in the tax notice separately. In a case where the individual tax amount and the additional tax are to be imposed together, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof shall be described separately. As such, if the individual tax amount and the additional tax are not clearly divided into the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation, and the basis for calculation, and only the principal tax and the additional tax are entered without properly distinguishing the individual tax amount and the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation, etc., the imposition is unlawful (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 20

On the other hand, if it is evident that a taxpayer is not at all hindered in the decision-making and appeal of dissatisfaction with the disposition by the tax authority prior to the taxation disposition, the defect of the tax payment notice can be supplemented or cured. However, the document that can supplement the defect of the tax payment notice can be issued prior to the tax payment notice is limited to the delivery to the taxpayer prior to the tax payment notice in accordance with the Acts and subordinate statutes, so it can be combined with the tax payment notice. In addition, the necessary entries of the tax payment notice should be properly stated (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5505 delivered on October 13, 2005).

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 10-1 through 3 of the evidence No. 10-3, when the defendant issued the disposition of this case to the plaintiff as of Nov. 25, 2009, the notice for payment sent by the defendant to the plaintiff as of Nov. 25, 2009 is merely "tariff 151,485,40 won, value-added tax 204,150,040 won, additional tax 150,99,970 won," and the tax amount by type does not include any separate tax amount between additional tax and the calculation basis of tax base or tax rate by item, etc., and the defendant sent to the plaintiff along with the above notice for payment at the time of the disposition of this case is not clearly stated. The defendant's notice for correction of the tax amount illegally collected and added in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, the defect in the calculation basis of each principal tax and additional tax is not stated.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful in terms of procedural aspect.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted with due reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the disposition of this case is revoked.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Cho Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)