Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

In full view of the evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2-3, evidence No. 4, 5, evidence No. 19-5, evidence No. 3-1, 2, 3, evidence No. 6-1, 8-2, and evidence No. 26-1, 2, and 3, each of the above evidence No. 26-1, 2, and 3, and all of the testimony and arguments of the above witness who are not disputed in the formation, the following facts may be acknowledged, and no other counter-proof exists.

(1) The Plaintiff was a company established on April 29, 1985 for the purpose of manufacturing, assembling, selling automobile parts, etc., and had its trade name been changed to the current trade name in the process of combining the non-party YM (HS) Industrial Company on December 5, 1989, and the non-party IMS Industrial Company was the non-party 1, a U.S. corporation and the non-party 2, a U.S. corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "GM") company established on May 9, 1985. The Plaintiff concluded a technology introduction agreement between the company and the company established on September 30, 1985 for the purpose of manufacturing, assembling, and selling automobile parts and parts of automobile parts established on the technical provision of the company, and the domestic sales and export of IM company to the company (hereinafter referred to as the "GM") on May 30, 1985, and concluded the technology introduction agreement between the Plaintiff and the company No. 136, May 23, 1983).

(2) The contents of the instant technology introduction agreement are as follows: (a) IM company granted an exclusive license to the industrial property of IM company in the Republic of Korea for the air conditioning equipment, brake equipment, steering device, steering device, and exhaust gas purification equipment (hereinafter “L2”) for five years from the date of commercial production; and (b) provide technical information for the assembling and manufacturing of the L2’s products; and (c) provide the materials specifications in the manner of ① (d) provide inspection procedures ④ special tools, fixtures, shapes, paper boards, instruments and models; and (e) communicate renewable copies or microfilmss on the process of manufacturing; and (b) separately provide technical advice and training to the Plaintiff at the request of the Plaintiff; and (c) separately provide technical advice and training to the Plaintiff’s employees at the time of request; and (d) provide them with remuneration to the Plaintiff’s employees at the time of providing technical advice and training for the kinds of products; and (e) provide them with remuneration to the Plaintiff’s employees at the same time.

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff ordered the Plaintiff to collect customs duties from GM 1 in 1986 through 1988 and technical information provided by GM 1 in Korea and foreign raw materials or components from technical services, and to sell LM 1 in Korea and foreign countries. After regular inspections by the Korea Customs Service on June 21, 1989, on December 5 of the same year, the amount equivalent to the portion of the royalties paid by the Plaintiff to G 1 in Korea for the production of LM 1 in 1986 through 198 (hereinafter referred to as “the royalties of this case”), the amount equivalent to the portion of the royalties of No. 1 in 30, 1986, 196, 28, and 196, 3.7, 4, 19, 196, 4, 196, 19, 19, 3, 19, 19, 19, 4, 196, 19, 19, 4, 4, 6, 7, 6, 1, 9.

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is lawful

(1) Both claims

The Defendant asserts that the instant taxation is lawful, since the content of the technology provided by the Plaintiff under the instant technology licensing agreement concerns the whole process from the basic material of the licensing product to the completion stage of the product, and the instant imported goods are parts of the product subject to the industrial property of IM company, which are exclusively produced by IMs or their affiliates. Since the instant imported goods are all manufactured by IMs or their affiliates, the level of technology is low, and quality inspection was conducted by IMs or their affiliates were not allowed to import the instant imported goods for the production of Ras products, and the instant imported goods, which are the parts of Ras products or their components, were not able to be produced or imported by IMs or their affiliates, without paying royalties.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that in the technology introduction contract of this case, the subject of technology introduction or the subject of the technology usage fee is not related to the technology for manufacture of the License Products or the information on the technology for manufacture of the License Products, and there is no obligation clause that the License Products should undergo quality inspection for the License Products, or that the parts should be purchased from the License Company, and that the imported goods of this case shall not be exclusively produced by the License Company or exclusively used for the production of the License Products, and that the usage fee shall be calculated at the ratio of net sales, and the cost of parts purchased from the License Company shall be excluded from the calculation. Thus, the Technology usage fee of this case is not related to the imported goods of this case, and thus, the taxation disposition of this case is unlawful in addition to the payment rate of the License Fees of this case, regardless of the existence of the existence of the relationship with the imported goods of this case and the terms of transaction.

(2) Review of relevant laws and regulations

Therefore, in order to determine the legitimacy of the taxation disposition of this case, I first examine the applicable laws and regulations.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (THE GEAL REEONOTREEE, hereinafter referred to as "GTRE") provides for the customs duties and non-tariffs, removal of barriers to customs duties and non-tariffs, equitable and reasonable customs duties, and Korea also has subscribed to the Convention No. 243 of April 14, 1967, and Article 7(2) and (3) provides that the customs value of the imported goods shall be in accordance with the actual price of the goods in Korea and shall not be added to the price of the goods in question, free of charge, or processing thereof if they are sold under competitive conditions in ordinary commercial transactions, and the actual price of the imported goods in question shall be the price of the goods in question or like goods, and the method of determining the customs value of the goods in question shall be the sale price of the goods in question, the sale price of which shall be determined by the General Convention No. 9700, Mar. 17, 197.

Accordingly, Article 9-3 through 14 of the Customs Act was amended by Act No. 3666 of Dec. 29, 1983. Article 9-3(1) of the Customs Act provides that the customs value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the following amount to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer for the goods exported to Korea. Article 9-3(1) of the Customs Act provides that the customs value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the following amount to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer for the goods exported to Korea:

In addition, the above detailed rules set forth in Article 1 of the Customs Duties Enforcement Rule, the purpose of which is to stipulate the detailed matters necessary to enforce the provisions of the Customs Duties Act, the Enforcement Rule, the Enforcement Rule, the Enforcement Rule, and the New Evaluation Convention. Article 20(1) of the Customs Duties Enforcement Rule provides that where the user fee of a patent right, etc. that is not included in the actual amount of payment is related to the imported goods and is paid on the condition of transaction, it shall be added. Paragraph (3) of the same Article refers to the case where the user fee is related to the imported goods. Paragraph (1) of the same Article, Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the imported goods are parts and materials used for the production of finished products based on the patent right, etc., and Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that the user fee shall be paid on the basis of transaction conditions of the imported goods. Paragraph (1) of the same Article provides that the person holding the right to the patent right, etc. (including a person who has a special relation with or obtained approval for the use of the patent right) and thus it cannot be purchased from a third party.

Therefore, in light of the contents, history, form, etc. of various provisions, the purpose of Article 8(1)(c) of the ATR Convention and Article 9-3(1)4 of the Customs Act is to ensure fair and reasonable taxation by adding the fees to the actual payment price pursuant to Article 7(2) and (3) of the ATR, or to determine the actual payment price of the imported goods in collusion between the buyer and the seller, more unreasonably than the actual payment price in ordinary commercial transactions. In addition, even if the difference is paid under the name of the user fee, etc., the granting of the customs duty only as the actual payment price would be to allow the evasion of the customs duty. In addition, the difference between the concealed actual payment price and the actual payment price is not only an obstacle to the expansion of international trade through free competition, and the actual payment price is the price of the imported goods. Thus, the customs duty assessment rule cannot be concluded as an order to determine whether it constitutes a customs duty rate for the purposes of Article 3(2) and (3) of the Customs Act to determine whether it constitutes a new provision on determining the customs duty payment rate for citizens and employees.

(3) Whether the instant taxation disposition is lawful

Now, we see the case of this case.

The facts that the instant imported goods were used for the manufacture and assembly of licensing products and produced by IMs or their affiliates are not disputed between the parties, and in the instant technology introduction agreement, it is not sufficient to recognize that the instant technical user fee was paid as the terms and conditions of the instant imported goods in relation to the instant imported goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant technical user fee was paid as the terms and conditions of the instant transaction in relation to the instant imported goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it in light of the following facts.

오히려 앞서 본 바와 같은 이 사건 기술도입계약의 내용에 비추어 보면, 기술도입의 주된 대상은 어디까지나 라이센스제품 자체에 대한 제조, 조립 기술이고, 이 사건 기술사용료의 지급대상도 라이센스제품에 대한 전용실시권의 허여, 그 제조기술정보의 제공 등이며, 부품의 도면이나 자재사양서의 전달 등 라이센스제품의 부품에 관한 기술정보의 제공은 그 부수용역에 불과한 것으로 보이고, 위 갑제19호증의 5, 을제3호증의 1, 2, 3, 증인 임동국의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑제16호증, 갑제21호증, 갑제25호증의 1, 2, 갑제27호증의 1, 2의 각 기재와 위 증인의 증언 및 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 기술도입계약상 원고가 라이센스제품의 제조에 관하여 지엠사로부터 품질검사를 받아야 할 의무나 지엠사측으로부터 라이센스제품의 부품을 구매하여야 할 의무에 관한 약정조항은 없고, 오히려 앞서 본 바와 같이 검사절차에 관한 기술정보의 제공도 이 사건 기술도입계약상 지엠사의 의무로 되어 있을 뿐만아니라, 지엠사가 제공한 기술정보나 지원을 이용한 결과로서 또는 라이센스제품의 제조, 판매의 결과로서 부담하게 될 책임은 모두 원고에게 있고, 지엠사에는 없다는 점과 원고에게 라이센스제품의 부품을 공급하게 하기 위하여 원고가 그 공급자들에게 그 부품에 관한 기술정보를 전파하는데 대하여 그 공급자들이 그 기술정보를 당해 목적에만 사용하고 다른 자들에게 공개하지 않겠다고 서면으로 합의하는 것을 조건으로 지엠사도 이에 동의한다는 점을 약정한 사실, 그리하여 원고는 라이센스제품의 제조를 위한 부품중 상당부분을 국산품으로 사용하고, 외국산부품 가운데 지엠사나 그 계열사가 아닌 기업으로부터도 상당량을 구입, 사용하였으며(1989.10.의 경우 금액을 기준으로 할 때, 원고가 제조한 라이센스제품에 사용된 총부품중 약 40%는 국산부품이고, 약 49%는 지엠사나 그 계열사로부터 구입한 것이며, 나머지 약 11%는 지엠사측 이외의 기업으로부터 수입한 것이었다.), 지엠사측으로부터 구입하던 부품도 다른회사 제품이 단가가 더 낮고, 공급능력과 품질의 안정성도 인정된다는 이유로 그 수입선을 다른회사로 전환한 경우도 상당수에 달하는 사실, 그리고 비록 원고가 라이센스제품의 제조에 사용할 부품의 구입처를 변경할 때에는 미리 그 새로운 구입처의 생산 부품이 라이센스제품에 적합한지의 여부에 대하여 지엠사에게 의뢰하여 그 검사, 확인 절차를 거치고 있으나, 그것은 검사장비가 고가품인데다, 원고가 생산한 라이센스제품의 국외 구매자가 지엠사이므로 그 사용부품의 하자로 인한 매도인으로서의 하자담보책임의 발생을 사전에 예방하기 위한 것일 뿐, 이 사건 기술도입계약에 의하여 그와 같은 검사절차를 거치는 것은 아닌 사실, 기술사용료는 라이센스제품의 종류에 따라 순매출액의 2 내지 3% 상당액으로 하되, 그 순매출액을 총매출액에서 매출 에누리액, 환입품액, 제품판매에 따른 간접세(부가가치세를 포함), 보험료, 포장료, 운반비, 판매수수료, 광고비, 설치비용 및 원고가 지엠사나 그 계열사로부터 구입, 사용한 부품의 구입비용 등을 공제한 금액으로 산정하기로 약정하였던 사실, 이에 따라 원고가 라이센스제품의 제조를 위하여 지엠사나 그 계열사이외의 자로부터 부품을 구입하더라도 지엠사에게 그 기술사용료를 지급하여야 하는 반면에 지엠사측의 부품을 사용하는 비율이 높을수록 지엠사에게 지급하여야 할 기술사용료는 오히려 적어지게 되는 사실, 또한 지엠사는 원고가 1988년도의 콤푸레셔 매출부분에서 손실을 보았다는 이유로 라이센스제품중 공기조화장치의 매출액에 관한 1988년도의 기술사용료 금210,748,388원을 면제하여 주기도 한 사실을 인정할 수 있는 바, 이와 같은 이 사건 기술도입계약의 내용 즉, 기술도입의 대상과 기술사용료의 지급대상, 품질검사의무나 부품구입의무가 없고, 부품구입처의 선택권이 원고에게 있는 점, 특히 기술사용료의 산정방법상 지엠사측으로부터 구입, 사용한 부품의 구입비용이 기술사용료 산정과정에서 공제비용으로 인정됨으로써 그 구입비용이 많을수록 지급하여야 할 기술사용료가 적어지는 점(따라서 그 구입비용을 기술사용료로 분식, 은폐할 필요가 전혀 없다.)등을 종합적으로 고려하여 보면, 비록 이 사건 수입물품이 라이센스제품의 전용품이고, 그중 일부가 지엠사측의 독점 생산품이라고 하더라도(지엠사측의 독점 생산품이라는 증거가 부족할 뿐만아니라, 수입선전환의 사례로 보아 이 사건 수입물품의 전부가 지엠사의 독점 생산품이라고는 도저히 볼 수 없다.), 이 사건 기술사용료가 이 사건 수입물품과 관련성이 있다거나, 그 거래조건성이 있다고 할 수는 없으므로, 그 관련성과 거래조건성이 있음을 전제로 하는 이 사건 과세처분은 위법하다고 하겠고, 따라서 이점에 관한 원고의 주장은 이유 있다.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, since the taxation disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the defendant who has lost it, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

September 11, 1991

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)