2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On April 11, 2007, 0000, 000 OOOOE Co., Ltd. was merged to the Plaintiff on January 11, 2008, when the company was engaged in the export and import of petroleum products.

B. Around 2002, 002, ○○ Myun Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) entered into a contract to supply oil to an ocean-going ship with an ocean-going chain Co., Ltd. under the above supply contract, and entered into a maritime oil supply service contract with ○○ Lyun Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Lyun”) in order to supply oil to an ocean-going ship. The ○○ Myun Co., Ltd. entered into an oil tanker charter contract with ○○ Myun Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Lyun”) and supplied oil to an ocean-going ship by requesting oil oil supply service on the ○○ Myun.

C. The Plaintiff loaded oil for the ship to an ocean-going ship and issued a certificate of loading exported goods subject to refund from the Busan Customs office in accordance with Article 4 subparagraph 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning Refund”) from October 15, 2002 to June 14, 2004, the Plaintiff received refund from the Ulsan Customs office of KRW 140,99,60, traffic tax of KRW 1,853,53,543,430, education tax of KRW 278,032,320.

D. (1) However, from September 25, 2002 to June 7, 2004, 000: (a) illegally released part of the oil for vessels supplied by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant oil”) to the Republic of Korea on a total of 42 occasions; and (b) forged the signature of the head of an ocean-going vessel on the receipt of oil supply (BUNFCCCDDIVEEIPT) and submitted it to the Plaintiff via the ○○ Maritime Oil Co., Ltd.

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant imposed customs duties of KRW 12,302,950 (including additional duties of KRW 5,820,970), traffic tax of KRW 129,540,150 (including additional taxes of KRW 61,280,190), education tax of KRW 19,431,010 (including additional taxes of KRW 9,191,020), and customs duties of KRW 227,60,040 (including additional taxes of KRW 93,083,450), traffic tax of KRW 3,024,420,350 (including additional taxes of KRW 5,80), traffic tax of KRW 129,50 (including additional taxes of KRW 61,280,126,80), traffic tax of KRW 63,662,688,686,786,786, etc. (including additional taxes of this case), as described in Appendix 2.

(3) In addition, on November 29, 2006, 2006, Busan District Court Decision 2006No2607 decided November 29, 2006, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in the year and six months, due to the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, forging private documents, or uttering of forged documents.

(e)(1)The general procedures for refunding customs duties, etc. on oil supplied to ocean-going ships are as follows:

In other words, the representative of the oil refineries that the oil was brought in normally after the oil was brought in, and the oil supply receipt signed jointly by the head of the ship for overseas navigation shall be prepared and the oil refining company shall be entitled to refund the customs duties, etc. paid by submitting it to the head of the competent customs office on the basis of the receipt.

(2) After the ○○ Sea level illegally leaked the instant oil, the receipt of oil supply prepared by forging the signature of the chief of an ocean-going ship owner was also issued in the name of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff signed the supplier’s column to verify the supply of the instant oil by the Plaintiff’s oil supplier.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 21(1) of the Customs Act, customs duties may not be imposed after the lapse of two years from the date on which the customs duties may be imposed. The instant disposition was imposed upon the basis of the imposition period, and thus null and void.

B. In the event of a series of illegal refunds of customs duties, etc., the amount of customs duties to be refunded shall be collected from the person responsible for the illegal refund. The oil supplied to an ocean-going ship is not directly shipped out and sold to the ocean-going oil supplier, but also sold to the ocean-going oil supplier and taken out through the above company. Whether a ship oil supplier loaded the oil to the ocean-going ship through the ship is confirmed by the head of the competent customs office. Even if the 00 sea oil supplier reported false details and applied for the issuance of a loading confirmation, the relevant loading confirmation shall be valid as long as the head of the customs office issued a loading confirmation in accordance with legitimate procedures. Thus, the imposition of the instant disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff is not liable for the illegal outflow of the oil in this case and that the refund of customs duties, etc. was refunded in accordance with legitimate procedures, is unlawful, contrary

C. The Plaintiff’s failure to know the illegal distribution of the instant oil is merely a refund of customs duties in reliance on the entry of a certificate of bringing-in by the head of a customs office. It is unlawful to impose additional duties thereon.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination

A. The plaintiff 2. A. Determination on the plaintiff's assertion

(1) According to Article 21(1) of the Customs Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where customs duties are collected again, it shall not be imposed two years after the day following the day on which the customs duties are refunded, but where customs duties are refunded by unlawful means, the period of exclusion shall be extended to five years. Since the Defendant issued the instant disposition before five years elapse from the day following the day on which the Plaintiff received the refund of customs duties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the part on the imposition of customs duties during the instant disposition is illegal because

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Customs Act applies to cases where a person who received the refund of customs duties in an unlawful manner and thereby commits a crime of evading customs duties under Article 270(5) of the same Act. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the main text of Article 21(1) of the same Act, not the proviso of Article 21(1), should apply to the Plaintiff who did not commit a crime of evading customs duties, and that the exclusion period should be two years.

However, even if the customs duty evasion under Article 270 (5) of the Customs Act is illegally refunded, the customs duty exclusion period may not be extended unless the act does not reach the level of establishment of a crime of evading customs duty under Article 270 (5) of the Customs Act. However, as seen in this case, if a person liable to pay the customs duty is different from a person who actually committed an unlawful act in the customs refund procedure, it cannot be said that the customs duty evasion period should not be applied to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the person who received the refund of the customs duty does not have the intention of evading customs duty, and thus, the customs duty evasion period under the main sentence of Article 21 (1) of the Customs Act shall not be applied to the Plaintiff’s agent, and as such, the Plaintiff’s act of withdrawing the instant oil by unlawful means with the intention of evading customs duty and was subject to criminal punishment. As can be seen, the Plaintiff’s act of evading customs duty imposition is deemed to have been refunded to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s agent was not subject to punishment for evading customs duty imposition of the Plaintiff’s 2.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the imposition of customs duties in the instant disposition is unlawful by neglecting the exclusion period for imposition of customs duties is without merit.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. B

According to Articles 4 and 21 of the Refund Special Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in a case where traffic tax and education tax imposed on the goods that are used as vessel supplies between Korea and foreign countries should be refunded when the goods were imported, and the traffic tax, etc. should be imposed, clearly stating the person subject to collection as the person subject to traffic tax, etc., and the plaintiff entered into a contract with ○○○○○○, Inc., Ltd. to supply oil to an ocean-going ship. Thus, the final consumer of the oil of this case was determined as an ocean-going ship, and ③ the person subject to traffic tax with the receipt of oil supply and the confirmation of the goods brought in for export, etc. of the oil of this case is not the plaintiff ○○, but the person subject to traffic tax and the person subject to traffic tax who supplied the oil of this case is not the plaintiff ○○, but the person subject to traffic tax and the person subject to traffic tax should not be used for the above purpose of the plaintiff ○, the person subject to the payment of the traffic tax.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. Judgment on Plaintiff 2. C. Opinion

(1) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not considered. On the other hand, such sanction cannot be imposed when there are circumstances where the taxpayer could be deemed to be not aware of his/her obligation, or when there are circumstances where it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to perform his/her obligation, or when there are other circumstances where it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to perform his/her obligation.

(2) Under Article 1-1-2 of the Notice on the Handling of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export, a certificate of bringing-in of exported goods subject to refund refers to the documents confirmed and issued by the head of the competent customs office with respect to the goods loaded on an overseas navigation ship. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff believed the entry of the certificate of bringing-in of the exported goods subject to refund issued by the head of the competent customs office, and submitted it to the Defendant who is the head of the competent customs office. Thus, the Plaintiff was entitled to the traffic tax, etc. that the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant, who is the head of the competent customs office, believed the entry of the certificate of bringing-in of the exported goods subject to refund, and expected the Plaintiff to perform the duty of paying the customs duties, etc. refunded to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to

(3) Therefore, the part on imposition of penalty tax in the instant disposition is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the instant disposition is based on the following: (a) the penalty tax of KRW 5,820,970 among the imposition of KRW 12,30,950 among the imposition of KRW 12,30,950 on the attached Table 1; (b) the penalty tax of KRW 61,280,190 among the imposition of KRW 129,540,150 on the attached Table 1; (c) the penalty tax of KRW 9,191,020 among the imposition of KRW 19,431,01,010 on the attached Table 1; and (d) the penalty tax of KRW 227,60,070 among the imposition of KRW 227,60,00 on the attached Table 2; (c) the traffic tax of KRW 3,024,420,350 on the attached Table 2; (d) the education tax of KRW 1,239,12680,62,600.