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

A. Three companies, such as B, C, and D (hereinafter “B, etc.”) participated in the public auction of the right to import a shoulder, awarded a successful bid by the E Corporation (hereinafter “Corporation”) and received a recommendation letter for the application of the market access volume tariff from the said Corporation (hereinafter “Recommendation letter”) from October 6, 2009 to September 28, 2010, and imported 162 tons of domestic production e.g., the concession rate of 40% (hereinafter “instant concession rate”) for the key participants as indicated in the attached list from October 6, 2009 to September 28, 2010.

B. In order to avoid the application of the High-Recommending Tariff Rates (630%) when importing the key participants of this case, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was the actual owner who imported the key participants of this case by acquiring the successful bid price by transfer of the right to receive a successful bid price by B, etc., and filed an accusation with the prosecution on the suspicion that the Plaintiff was subject to the application of the tariff rate of this case by illegally participating in the bid or by obtaining the right to receive a successful bid price by using another’s name

C. In addition, the Defendant issued a disposition to rectify and impose the total amount of customs duties and additional duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the key key key key key key key key key key key key key of this case by applying 630% of the U.S. tariff concession rate to the Plaintiff by applying 630% of the U.S. tariff concession rate to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff, a real owner of the key key key key key key key key key key key key key key key of this case, was not issued a letter of recommendation under the Plaintiff’s name and imported the key key key key key key key key key of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 25, 2013, but was dismissed on November 6, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply).