Whether a reason for additional collection of duty-free customs duties is applicable to a transfer without a prior approval of the head of a customs office where the goods imported as tax-free customs are offered as security and sold by the exercise of the security right pursuant to the measures for insolvency of the

The term "transfer" in Article 28 (2) and (3) of the Customs Act refers to the act of causing a change in ownership by free will, or the act of providing a duty-free imported goods as a bond security to a person, and the goods are sold to another person by auction without the approval of the customs collector even if the goods are sold by auction due to the exercise of the security right. Thus, if the exempted-free fishing vessel of this case established a mortgage as a bond security by the execution of the security right and the auctioned the goods to the other person without the approval of the customs collector, the transfer without the prior approval of the customs collector shall be deemed to have caused an additional collection of the duty-free transfer without the approval of the customs collector, and even if the goods are sold by auction due to the exercise of the security right by the government in accordance with the measures against insolvent corporate reorganization, it shall not be deemed to constitute

Articles 28(2) and 28(3) of the Customs Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu162 Decided February 14, 1978 delivered on May 10, 197

United Kingdom Fisheries Corporation

Head of Seoul Customs Office

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu49 delivered on February 24, 1981

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, with respect to the import of vessels of this case financed by the plaintiff's own Cheongwon as collateral, the court below exempted the above vessel from customs duties under Article 28 (1) of the Customs Act (No. 2062 of December 31, 1968) on condition that the vessel shall not be used or transferred for five years other than the original purpose under Article 28 (1) of the Customs Act. Under Article 28, the court below held that the above vessel's auction by the Korea Assets Management Corporation's exercise of the security right may not be disputed between the parties, and held that the above vessel's exercise of the security right can be exempted from customs duties under Article 28 (1) 7 of the Customs Act without the approval of the sale of the vessel's non-party 1 and the sale of the vessel's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's transfer of the goods within seven years prior approval of import.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the auction of this case does not constitute "transfer subject to the approval of the head of the customs office" as stipulated in the above provision of the Customs Act, because it is called the case of the exercise of security right following the government's measures for corporate restructuring, cannot be viewed as an "transfer subject to the approval of the head of the customs office", and there is no error of law that affected the judgment by erroneous interpretation of the above provision

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young