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

Each imposition of KRW 151,485,440, value-added tax of KRW 204,150,040, and penalty tax of KRW 150,99,970 against the Plaintiff on November 25, 2009 shall be revoked.

The reasons for the explanation concerning this case are as follows: “Liability for tax payment is borne by the △△△ Decision 11, Section 21, Section 21, and the respective entries in the evidence No. 40 through 64 alone are insufficient to reverse the recognition.” The reasons for the explanation are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, except for addition as stated in the △△△△ Decision 2, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

The following parts shall be added between the 12th sentence and the 6th sentence.

E. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant merely stated only the final tax amount in a tax payment notice on the principal tax and additional tax, and did not expressly state the tax base and the basis for calculation of the amount of tax. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful against the principle of due process.

(2) Determination

Article 39 of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that the head of a customs office shall issue a duty payment notice to a person liable for duty payment as prescribed by Presidential Decree in cases where the head of a customs office wishes to collect customs duties. Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21634, Jul. 22, 2009) provides that the head of a customs office shall issue a duty payment notice stating the items, amount, place of payment, etc. of customs duties to a person liable for duty payment when collecting customs duties pursuant to Article 39(3), 47(1) or the latter part of Article 270(5) of the Customs Act.

On the other hand, if it is evident that a taxpayer is not at all hindered in determining whether to object to a tax disposition or filing an objection because the mandatory descriptions of the tax notice, etc. sent by the tax authority prior to the taxation disposition, etc. are properly stated, the defect of the tax notice can be supplemented or cured (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du8039 delivered on March 27, 2001, etc.).

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in No. 10-1 through No. 3 as to this case, it is recognized that the defendant, as of November 25, 2009, stated that the notice for payment sent by the plaintiff as of November 25, 2009, "Customs 151,485,440 won, value-added tax 204,150,040 won, additional tax 150,99,970 won" as well as the above notice for payment at the time of the disposition in this case, it is deemed that the defendant served the plaintiff with the "the correction table of the amount of illegal tax reduction and exemption" as well as the notice for payment in this case. Accordingly, the defendant is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the tax payment notice as to the above disposition in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judicial Enforcement Decree of Judges (Presiding Judge)