B. In the event that the Plaintiff made a confession as to necessary expenses, whether the customs authority is exempt from the burden of proof (affirmative)

(b) Even if the burden of proof of necessary expenses, which is a taxation requirement, in the tax litigation, exists on the tax authority, if the plaintiff led to the confession, it shall be deemed that the tax authority on the necessary expenses is exempted from

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below which held that the plaintiff and the above Japanese Docar had special relations under Article 9-3 (2) 4 of the Act and Article 3-3 of the Decree and that this affected the import price of the other parts (not the precedents of the lawsuit), and that Article 9-6 of the Act must be the price sold to the unrelated parties as one of the domestic sales price requirements that can be the basis for calculating the customs value of imported goods. Thus, the court below's determination that determined the customs value of the other parts of the instant case based on the sales price of the aforementioned new Ga company according to the reasonable criteria under Article 9-8 of the Act and Article 28 of the Rules delegated by the Act is just without adopting the calculation method under the above provision, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the legal principles, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the incomplete deliberation.

In determining the dutiable value based on the sale price of the new company, there is an error of law between the court below and the court below's decision that there was an excessive deduction of profits and sales expenses of the new company in addition to the sales agents added to the sale price when the plaintiff sells the new company to the new company. However, according to the records, the plaintiff stated that the sale price at the 17th day of the court below's 17th day of the court below did not dispute the amount of deduction when the sale price is calculated as 127 won per opening the sale price at the 130th day of the new company, which shows that the necessary expenses amount was the same as the head of the defendant. However, even if the defendant, who is the tax authority, bears the burden of proof of necessary expenses, which is a tax requirement, makes a confession, even if the plaintiff is the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant's necessary proof as to the necessary expenses shall be exempted. Therefore, the plaintiff's new necessary expenses for the final appeal shall not be justified.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)