반입정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception that “1,802,920 won” in Section 7 of the judgment of the first instance is deemed as “1,082,920 won” in Section 2 of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act
2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that an import declaration was in violation of the principle of proportionality was withdrawn from the goods sent to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the import declaration was accepted due to the error of PDA, etc., which is a cargo management equipment, and did not have intention to do so. Since most contracts were concluded once a year, given the characteristics of the special transmission industry, if the Plaintiff cannot bring into the goods for seven days, the companies that have entered into a transaction with the Plaintiff enter into a new contract with other special transmission companies for the delivery of goods. As a result, the 7-day political disposition for bringing into the Plaintiff has the effect similar to the business suspension for at least one year. The goods taken out by the Plaintiff before the import declaration is accepted are the goods imported by the Plaintiff for the purpose of use by the Plaintiff and most of the goods are exempt from customs duties and are not the goods. Moreover, the instant disposition was unlawful in light of the principle of equality and trust in the import declaration prior to the receipt of the Defendant’s warning to the Plaintiff.