Whether a person who received a donation of goods brought into the bonded storage place may request the State for extradition without the completion of the customs clearance procedure;

Even if the Plaintiff received the gift of the instant goods, the instant goods cannot be delivered to the Plaintiff unless they are domestic goods due to the imposition and collection of the prescribed customs duties, and the imposition and collection of customs duties may not be ordered by the court because they belong to the administrative disposition.

Article 2 of the Customs Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da730 Delivered on June 10, 1975

Plaintiff

Korea

Daegu District Court of First Instance (72 Gohap137)

Supreme Court Decision 74Da435 delivered on July 16, 1974

The original judgment shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In addition to the plaintiff's legal representative's claim for the first time after remanding the case, the defendant delivered to the plaintiff 130 tons of Japan leather theory. The defendant's legal expenses are assessed against the defendant, or the defendant has completed customs clearance procedures for the 130 tons of Japan leather, which is kept in the Busan Customshouse, and delivered the plaintiff. The legal expenses are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

In light of the fact that the defendant was seized on October 28, 1970 and thereafter possessed 130 tons of Japan's leather 130 tons (hereinafter referred to as this case's goods), which were stored in the 6th Do-dong International Data Treaty of Busan, the non-party 2 had no dispute between the parties, and the testimony and origin of the non-party 2 to 7 and the result of each verification of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who is Japan, shall be subject to the limitation of import since the non-party 3 had no evidence of the court below's 90 tons of Japan's 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 196th 7th 197 7th 196 7th 197 7th 1st 196th 3th 19.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative asserted that the Plaintiff received the instant goods from Nonparty 2, the owner of the instant goods, seeking the delivery of the goods and seeking the delivery of the goods to the Defendant on a selective basis. As such, the Plaintiff’s legal representative may not deliver the goods to the Plaintiff unless they were domestic goods due to the imposition and collection of prescribed customs duties and undergoing customs clearance procedures, even if the Plaintiff received the instant goods as alleged in the above. The imposition and collection of customs duties is a legal principle that is subject to the administrative disposition and the court cannot order such administrative disposition, and there is no dispute between the parties that the instant goods had not yet completed customs clearance procedures.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection is without merit, and it is dismissed in its entirety. Since the original judgment is unfair with different conclusions, it is revoked in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96 and Article 89 of the same Act with respect to the bearing of the total cost of lawsuit.

Judge Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)