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

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the part of the first instance court’s 15th parallel 4 to 9th parallel 15th parallel 15th parallel 4 and 9th parallel 2; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court, except for adding the judgment on the Plaintiff’s new assertion as stated in the following 3th parallel 3. Therefore, it is cited in accordance with

2. Parts to be dried;

③ The Plaintiff submitted documents related to the order of delivery, which served as the basis for each disposition of the instant case. In the event that the power of presentation is not visible as shown in the attached Table 2 (the order of entry No. 13 and 17), or the power of presentation is considerably different for not less than two years between the date of delegation and the date of delivery, though the power of presentation was made, the mandatory’s identification card is not available for more than three months, or where it is impossible to identify the vessel’s identity card due to the content and photograph of the submitted identification card, (where the order of delivery is issued to the mandatory, only through the identification card attached to the order of delivery), and if the mandatory’s identification card is not submitted or sufficient to verify the identity card, it cannot be said that the authorized person was lawfully issued the vessel’s agent’s identity card, but most of the authorized person’s name and the date of delivery are different from the authorized person’s own name and the vessel’s identity card are not disclosed, but it is also more important if the authorized person’s name and the vessel’s identity were not disclosed.

3. The addition;

The Plaintiff asserts that the oil supply business, which is the main basis of each of the dispositions of this case, cannot be seen as an act of management of the penalty tax imposition provision by failing to comply with the procedures set out in the business guidelines because the oil supply business guidelines which the Defendants are merely unreasonable and legally not recognized.

On the other hand, the business guidelines were established by the successive delegation of Article 106-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the special provisions, and the supply management guidelines. The detailed guidelines necessary to perform the duty of supplying duty-free petroleum are general and abstract characteristics. The business guidelines provide for detailed matters necessary for the supply and follow-up management of duty-free petroleum, which are internal business guidelines prepared by the Plaintiff. However, in order to provide for detailed matters necessary for the supply and follow-up management of duty-free petroleum, the business guidelines include reasonable standards for the methods, procedures, etc. of the supply and follow-up management of duty-free petroleum by embodying superior statutes. Thus, when the Plaintiff complies with the above regulations and issues a delivery order, it must be considered as a matter of course when determining whether there was "reliability in the provision on the imposition of additional tax in this case" (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du21669, Nov. 29, 2012). Therefore, the above argument by

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.