A. On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff imported C (hereinafter “instant goods”) from Company B located in Germany as D, and filed an import declaration with HSK No. 2106.90-9099 [FEU (Korea and the European Union Free Trade Agreement Tariff Rates 0%, hereinafter “99”) whose item number is classified as “other foodstuffs.”

B. On February 10, 2015, the Defendant asked the Director of the Customs Valuation Classification Classification on the instant goods. On February 29, 2016, the Director sent a reply to the head of the Customs Classification Classification Committee, following deliberation by the Tariff Classification Committee on February 29, 2016, that the instant goods constituted HS K 2106.90-3029 (hereinafter “FEU 480%”) as “other red ginseng products.”

C. On March 21, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff prior to taxation that the Plaintiff would rectify and notify the total of KRW 91,932,57,579, and KRW 91,97,579, in addition to KRW 71,522,827, value-added tax, KRW 7,152,283, and penalty tax 13,257,259, by applying subparagraph 3029 to the instant good.

On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service, but the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service decided not to adopt a pre-assessment review on September 30, 2016.

On October 6, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 71,522,820, value-added tax of KRW 7,152,290, and penalty tax of KRW 14,424,69,80 in total and KRW 93,09,80.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for tax adjudication with the Director of the Tax Tribunal. On May 25, 2017, the Director of the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to re-examine whether the instant goods can be classified as 9099, to determine the tax rate and to correct the amount of tax according to the result (hereinafter “decision on re-audit of this case”).

F. The Defendant received a written opinion from the Plaintiff, examined the tariff classification of red ginseng products similar to the instant goods, and then, on July 7, 2017, modified the tariff classification to the Plaintiff in relation to the re-inspection decision.