(b)the collection of customs duties and the good faith principle for reasons that the customs collector did not approve the transfer of the duty-free imported goods after auction;

(c) Validity of auction of the duty-free imported goods without approval of the customs collector; and

(d) Prescription and completion of the collection right and the effect of a tax imposition disposition;

B. Unless the plaintiff has obtained approval from the customs collector under Article 28 (2) of the former Customs Act, the court of auction shall not impose customs duties exempted by the defendant for the reason that the above approval was not granted, and shall not be deemed to violate good faith.

C. The approval of the customs collector required for the transfer of duty-free imported goods is merely a requirement for duty-free goods, and the requirement for the acquisition of land ownership is not a requirement for the acquisition of the tax-free imported goods, and such auction shall not be deemed null and void at the

D. The taxation disposition itself does not become null and void even after the extinctive prescription of the right to collect tax claims imposed has expired.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the disposition of this case where the ship of this case, which was exempted from customs, is legitimate disposition of this case where the defendant imposed customs duties exempted from customs duties on the transfer of ownership by auction to a third party due to the exercise of security right as stated in its reasoning, by holding that it constitutes a transfer of duty-free goods without the approval of the head of customs office as stipulated in Article 28 (3) of the Customs Act (the Act before the amendment

In other words, even if the above auction was conducted by the President's special order for the reorganization of insolvent enterprises, such auction cannot be deemed unlawful or invalid for this reason. If the plaintiff provided security with a free will so long as it offered security to a third party, it constitutes a transfer without the approval of the customs collector and it cannot be deemed that it is a transfer without the approval of the customs collector or that there is the approval of the customs collector, and even if the transferor uses it for the same purpose, it constitutes a transfer under Article 28 (3) of the Customs Act, which was enforced at the time.

In light of the records, the above judgment below is just in accordance with the purport of returning party members, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, all of which are without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 5.

In the event that the plaintiff did not obtain the approval of the customs collector under Article 28 (2) of the former Customs Act, the auction court shall collect customs duties exempted by the defendant for the reason that the above approval was not granted after the auction court conducted the auction, and thus it cannot be deemed that the above approval violates the principle of good faith as in the theory of lawsuit. In addition, the above approval is only a requirement for duty exemption, and it is not a requirement for acquisition of ownership, and it shall not be deemed that the auction is null and void as in the theory of lawsuit.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 6.

On the other hand, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no reason to argue that the disposition itself has become null and void from the other point of view, since the extinctive prescription for the right to collect tax claims imposed has expired.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)