Article 7-5 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Goods Tax Act provides for special cases different from the provisions of Article 3 of the Goods Tax Act, which provide that the person liable to pay the tax on the goods shall be liable to pay the tax on the goods, and thus, the court below held that the judgment is just and there is no error of misapprehending the interpretation or legislative intent of the Customs Duties Act, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below as to the provision on the goods tax exemption or the provision on the goods tax exemption or the provision on Article 7-5 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act, since Article 7-5 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Goods Tax Act provides that the person liable to pay the tax on the goods shall be liable to pay the tax on the goods in certain cases, and thus it is invalid because the judgment does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the interpretation of the Customs Duties Act or the legislative intent of the Customs Duties on the goods goods taken out or taken out without the tax on the goods.

In addition, the court below made a decision on the premise that the goods tax imposed by the defendant on the plaintiff who is obligated to fulfill the conditions of the approval immediately due to the plaintiff's failure to fulfill the conditions of the approval, pursuant to Article 7-5 (4) of the above Rule, on the ground that the court below did not exercise the right of explanation as to the revocation of the approval of tax exemption and did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and there is no error of law in the exercise of the right of explanation, or in the omission of incomplete deliberation or the omission of judgment. Thus, the court below cannot be employed.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. 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 Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)