2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 10, 2015, on the 25th of the same month, the Plaintiff purchased from Qringao X Adi Syan 1mthm F. and Ltd (hereinafter “ exporters”) in China, and imported the goods of this case, and filed an import declaration with the Defendant as listed below.

[Attachment] The current status of importation declaration of the instant goods: CFR CFR (Date of Entry): terms and conditions including delivery charges until the seller delivers the goods to their destination. (U.S./metric) the terms and conditions that the seller pays the freight until the goods are delivered (U.S./metric) 106-15-60606.6.10 ( June 2, 2015) 24650 10676-15-0606.0606.6. 10, 2015.6. 2450 65010676-15-15-06. 15. 207. 205. 15. 205. 15. 25. 25. 205. 25. 205. 25. 25. 205. 25. 25. 2015

B. As a result of the tax examination of whether the dutiable value is appropriate, the Defendant denied the above dutiable value by the method under Article 32 of the Customs Act on the grounds that the import declaration price of the instant goods (hereinafter “instant declaration price”) is significantly different compared to the transaction price of similar goods. The data submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot resolve reasonable doubts as to the accuracy or truth of the declaration price, and determined the dutiable value by the method under Article 32 of the Customs Act, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 8,026,960 as stated in the “Additional Customs Duty” column in attached Table 1, depending on the difference between the lowest price of similar goods indicated below (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Korea Customs Service on December 3, 2015, but was dismissed on September 30, 2016.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap 2, 4 through 8, Eul 1 and 3.