[2] Whether the tax authority’s receipt of customs duties, which is the method of filing a return, by the taxpayer’s declaration, can be deemed a disposition imposing taxes (negative)

[3] The case holding that an administrative litigation may not be initiated against the subsequent rejection of a claim for refund of erroneous or erroneous payments without going through the previous trial procedure where a request for review against the customs collector's act of receiving a duty return was rejected, and a decision of rejection was made on the grounds that there was no disposition of imposition

[2] Article 17(2) of the Customs Act amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993 is converted to purely reported tax payment method to which the principle of customs duties is imposed and collected. In such a tax return method, the tax authority’s receipt of the tax amount by the taxpayer’s declaration is merely a factual act and cannot be deemed as a disposition of imposition.

[3] The case holding that where the head of a customs office who accepted the duty return for reasons of erroneous application of the adjusted duty rate without applying the basic tariff rate when filing the import declaration and the duty return filed a request for review of the head of the customs office who received the duty return and received the decision of rejection, and thereafter filed a request for refund of erroneous amount or erroneous payment, but the decision of rejection was made on the grounds of absence of the disposition of rejection, it is legitimate that the national tax Tribunal made a decision of rejection without making a substantial decision on the merits on the grounds that there is no disposition of rejection against the person liable for duty payment, and therefore, even if the person liable for duty payment received the request for rejection, it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer provided the opportunity to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues of the imported goods as the duty subject to adjustment, and thus, it does not constitute a case where the person liable

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found on February 25, 1994 that the plaintiff declared and paid the tax amount calculated by applying 40% of the early duty rate when filing an import declaration and a duty return on the goods of this case, and thereafter, the plaintiff filed a request for review on the goods of this case on the grounds that the basic tariff rate of 8% should be applied, not the adjusted duty rate but the adjusted duty rate, but the defendant's rejection decision was rejected, but the plaintiff filed a request for a review on the grounds that there was no tax disposition subject to objection, and again filed a request for refund on May 17, 1995 again against the defendant on the difference of the above customs duty rate, but the plaintiff filed a rejection disposition on the 26th of the same month. Since the plaintiff's request for review, appeal, and refund request were more unreasonably higher than that of the application of the customs duty rate, the plaintiff's rejection disposition was not subject to the same fact-finding and legal issue, and thus, the plaintiff's rejection disposition was more likely to be subject to the plaintiff's rejection disposition.

However, considering the special characteristics of tax-related cases, such as the fact that tax-related cases require professional and technical knowledge in order to understand them accurately and accurately, tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes are extremely large and periodically and repeatedly established, and the purport that the provisions of Articles 38 and 38-2 of the Customs Act excludes the application of Articles 18(2) and (3) and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the purport of excluding the application of Articles 18(3) and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, in a customs-related lawsuit, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service and the National Tax Tribunal provided the taxpayer with an opportunity to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, and the taxpayer can file an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition even without undergoing the pre-trial proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Nu796, Nov. 10, 1989).

Article 17(2) of the Customs Act amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993 converted the imposition and collection of customs duties in purely declared tax payment method. It is nothing more than a factual act that the tax authority receives the amount of tax according to the taxpayer's declaration in the tax return method, and it cannot be deemed a disposition of imposition (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1184, Dec. 6, 1996). As determined by the court below, the decision of rejection without making a substantial decision on the merits on the ground that the National Tax Tribunal did not have any tax disposition against the plaintiff's appeal, as determined by the court below, on the ground that there is no tax disposition against the plaintiff's appeal, the decision of rejection is lawful. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff received the decision of rejection on the request for examination, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff provided an opportunity to re-determination by the National Tax Tribunal on the basic facts and legal issues of whether the goods of this case are subject to adjustment duty, and it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer should not be subject to an administrative litigation.

Thus, the court below's judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is erroneous and correct since it was filed without due process of the pre-trial trial and its defect cannot be corrected. However, the court below's judgment on the merits is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the pre-trial procedure. The ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the conjunctive claim is reversed and it is sufficient for the Supreme Court to render a direct judgment based on the facts established by the court below, it is decided to see pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 407 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. For the reasons mentioned above, the lawsuit concerning the conjunctive claim in this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by the losing plaintiff,

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)