E.C. Roymplas Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seoul Customs Office and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Gangnam-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

January 14, 2015

1. A. The head of Seoul Customs Office imposed customs duties, etc. on the Plaintiff E-Iscoplasm Co., Ltd. on the Plaintiff’s A-Iscoplasm Co., Ltd. as indicated in the attached

B. The head of Daegu Customs Office imposed customs duties, etc. as stated in the separate disposition Nos. 2 and 3, imposed on the Plaintiff Sychoviral Republic of Korea Co., Ltd.

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs

(1) On March 8, 2005, Plaintiff ADO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff ADO”) produces and sells L CD glass plates (2.5~0.7mm in thickness x x x x 2m or more in length) to a foreign-invested enterprise (100% in equity ratio) established through investment by a Japanese Agropis Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AGC”) on March 8, 2005. Plaintiff Agropis Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff AFK”) is jointly established by a foreign-invested enterprise (hereinafter “AGC”), a liquid display (LM), a finished product (0% in equity ratio), a liquid display (L CD), and a finished product (0.5% in height x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x m m m m m m m m.).

(2) L CD glass plates are produced through a plate process that produces glass in the form of plate after mixing glass raw materials and then melting them in the form of plate. The Plaintiffs use “Float process” in the plate process. The Plaintiffs use “Float process” in the plate process by mixing glass raw materials, such as company companies (SiO2) and tin (CaO) with high temperature of 1,700 degrees high temperature higher than that of melted with high temperature of 1,700 degrees higher than that of melted with high weight higher than that of melted with high weight higher than that of melted with heavy glass, and then cut them slowly. On the basis of the lower portion provided by AGC, Plaintiff ADO’s tobacco process, Plaintiff AFK and Samsung LO’s supply, and supply, and supply, supply, and supply, etc., Samsung LO’s glass panel.

(b) License agreement, etc.;

(1) The Plaintiffs entered into the license agreement with AGC (hereinafter “instant license agreement”).

A person shall be appointed.

(2) The main contents of the 4th license agreement dated December 18, 2009 are as follows (However, the third license agreement did not include a business operation know-how).

본문내 포함된 표 원고들과 AGC는 액정디스플레이용 유리기판의 플로트, 연마 관련 기술 및 사업운영 노하우를 실시허여 함에 관하여 다음과 같이 합의하여 본 계약을 체결한다. 제1조(정의) 5. "본 소판제조기술"이란, 본건특허 ① 및 본건 소판노하우를 말한다 6. "본 연마기술"이란, 본건특허 ② 및 본건 연마노하우를 말한다. 7. "본건특허 ①"이란, 별지 1에 기재된 일본특허(일본국 특허청에게 계속되고 있는 것) 및 이와 실질적으로 동일한 발명인 전세계에서 출원된 특허출원 및 그 출원에 관하여 성립된 특허권을 말한다. 8. "본건특허 ②"란, 별지 3에 기재된 일본특허(일본국 특허청에게 계속되고 있는 것) 및 이와 실질적으로 동일한 발명인 전세계에서 출원된 특허출원 및 그 출원에 관하여 성립된 특허권을 말한다. 9. "본건 소판노하우"는 AGC가 본 계약 날짜에 있어서 보유 및 공업적으로 이용하고 있는 노하우이고, 본 소판제조에 관한 것을 말하며, 별지 2에 기재하고 있는 것을 포함한다(별지 2에 기재된 내용에 한하지 않음). 10. "본건 연마노하우"는 AGC가 본 계약 날짜에 있어서 보유 및 공업적으로 이용하고 있는 노하우이고, 본 연마에 관한 것을 말하며, 별지 4에 기재하고 있는 것을 포함한다(별지 4에 기재된 내용에 한하지 않음). 11. "사업운영 노하우"는 AGC가 본 제품을 제조하고 판매하기 위해서 보유하고 있는 사업운영일체에 관한 노하우이며, 본건 소판노하우 및 본건 연마노하우 이외의 것을 말한다. 별지1 본건특허 ① 번호 출원번호 등록번호 발명의 명칭 상태 16 (출원번호 1 생략) (등록번호 1 생략) 플로트 유리의 제조장치 등록확정 17 (출원번호 2 생략) (등록번호 2 생략) 플로트 유리의 제조장치 및 제조방법 등록확정 18 (출원번호 3 생략) (등록번호 3 생략) 플로트 유리의 제조장치 및 제조방법 등록확정 58 (출원번호 4 생략) (등록번호 4 생략) 플로트 판유리 제조장치 등록확정 59 (출원번호 5 생략) (등록번호 5 생략) 플로트 판유리 제조장치 등록확정 별지 2 본건 소판노하우 ① 원료종류/조합 플로우/조합장치/원료관리 ② 투입장치/투입관리 ③ 용해조구조/기능/로재/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ④ 세정설비구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑤ 공해대책(가스배출/배출액처리) ⑥ 연소장치/연소관리 ⑦ 메탈Bath설비/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑧ 레이어장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑨ 검사장치/구조/기능/메인터넌스 ⑩ 절단채판포장장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑪ 유틸리티장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑫ 계장장치/기능/메인터넌스 ⑬ 시험분석/기능/메인터넌스 별지 3 본건특허 ② 번호 출원번호 등록번호 발명의 명칭 상태 3 (출원번호 6 생략) (등록번호 6 생략) 판상체의 연마방법 및 장치 등록확정 4 (출원번호 7 생략) (등록번호 7 생략) 유리판의 절단방법 및 장치 등록확정 5 (출원번호 8 생략) (등록번호 8 생략) 유리판의 절단방법 및 장치 등록확정 별지 4 본건 연마노하우 ① 절·면취장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ② 연마장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ③ 검사·세정장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ④ 배수처리장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑤ 포장장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑥ 포장형태/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑦ 유틸리티장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑧ 계장장치/기능/메인터넌스 ⑨ 시험분석/기능/메인터넌스 제3조(실시허여) 1. AGC는 본 소판 제조기술, 본 연마기술 및 사업운영 노하우에 대하여 다음 각호의 목적을 위해 원고 AFK에 대해 비독점적, 양도불가, 재실시허여권이 없는 실시권을 허여한다. (1) 원고 AFK가 소판제조를 행하여 그 결과물인 소판유리를 국내에서 판매하는 것 (2) 원고 AFK가 연마를 행하여 그 결과물인 그 결과물인 본 제품을 국내에서 판매하는 것 2. AGC는 본 연마기술 및 사업운영 노하우에 대하여 원고 ADO이 본 연마를 수행하고 그 결과물인 본 제품을 국내에서 판매하는 것에 대하여 원고 AFK에 대해 비독점적, 양도불가, 재실시허여권이 없는 실시권을 허여한다. 제7조(비밀유지) 1. 원고들은 본 계약에 관하여 AGC로부터 알게 된 본건 소판노하우, 본건 연마노하우, 사업운영 노하우 및 AGC의 경영상, 영업상 또는 기술상 비밀을 제3자에게 보여주거나 누설해서는 안되고, 본 계약에서 명시적으로 허락된 범위 외에는 사용해서는 안된다. 2. 전항에 불구하고, 원고 AFK는 본건 소판제조 및 본건 연마를 행하기 위하여 설비 혹은 공사의 발주 및 업무의 위탁을 행하는 경우에는 당해 제3자에 대해 필요최소한의 본건 소판노하우 및 본건 연마노하우를 공개할 수 있다. 3. 제1항에 불구하고, 원고 ADO은 본건 연마를 행하기 위하여 제3자에 대해 설비 혹은 공사의 발주 및 업무의 위탁을 행하는 경우에는 당해 제3자에 대해 필요최소한의 본건 연마노하우를 공개할 수 있다.

(3) The current status of the payment of the royalty to Plaintiff AFK is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

The current status of the payment of the royalty for the use of the rights of the plaintiff ADO is as follows:

36,890,00,000 won for the aggregate of the year 2010,000 for the year 2010 included in the main sentence of this section 68,59,00,000 won for the year 2010

C. The plaintiffs' facility import and installation

The plaintiffs import facilities (the "facilities of this case" in total of the facilities imported by the plaintiffs) from AGC as follows, and completed all "import declaration prior to use" around November 201, 2010.

(N) price of 1.27 Jan. 27, 2009 Dama equipment D.301 9.6,000,000 on Dec. 1, 2009 Gama equipment D.116.66,000 on Sept. 30, 2005 Dama equipment D.12.7.5 billion on Sept. 30, 2005 Gama equipment D.12.7.5 billion 7.6 billion on May 22, 2006 8.4 billion Gama equipment D. 7.4 billion on May 22, 2006 Gama equipment D.139.5 billion Gama equipment D.1.6 billion on May 28, 2007 Gama equipment D.4000 billion Gama equipment D.14.7 billion 7.4 billion 7 billion Gama equipment on May 14, 2007

D. Grounds for dispositions against Plaintiff ADO

(1) On April 19, 2012, the Defendant head of the Seoul Customs Office notified Plaintiff ADO prior to taxation, applying the proviso to Article 3-4 subparag. 3 and subparag. 4(b) of the “Public Notice on Determination of Dutiable Value of Imported Goods” (Notice No. 2010-88, Jun. 10, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Public Notice”), on the grounds that “the royalty paid in 2010 and 2011 was related to the instant facilities, and paid as terms and conditions of transaction” (Article 3-4 subparag. 3 and subparag. 4(b).

(2) On September 27, 2012, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service requested a review of the legality of the Plaintiff ADO’s objection, and on September 27, 2012, he was determined to re-examine the method of calculating the royalty for the use of the right so that the total amount of the royalty for the use of the right can be added to the instant facilities, as the royalty was paid for all patents and know-hows related to the entire process from the development of products and the selection of raw materials to the inspection packing of the finished products.

(3) However, on June 22, 2013, the head of the Seoul Customs Office imposed and notified the customs duties, etc. on Plaintiff ADO by stipulating that the full amount of the royalty should be added to the import price, such as the content of the notice prior to taxation.

(4) While Plaintiff ADO filed a request for review on July 17, 2013, Plaintiff ADO received a decision of dismissal from the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service on October 30, 2013. Accordingly, the disposition of imposition of customs duties, etc. on Plaintiff ADO became as shown in the separate sheet No. 1.

E. Grounds for disposition against Plaintiff AFK

(1) The head of the defendant Daegu customs office imposed customs duties, etc. on the plaintiff AFK on the ground that " approximately KRW 1.3,22.6 billion (hereinafter "the royalty of this case", including approximately KRW 68.5 billion, paid to the plaintiff AFK from 2007 to 2013, was related to the equipment of this case, and was paid as terms and conditions of transaction." Accordingly, applying the proportional distribution formula under Article 3-4.3 proviso and subparagraph 4 (b) of the notification of this case, the total amount of the royalty of this case was added to the import price (excluding the exclusion of the exclusion period of imposition) by applying the proportional distribution formula under Article 3-4.3 proviso and subparagraph 4 (b) of the notification of this case. After that, the plaintiff AFK was determined to conduct a reinvestigation as seen below, the original disposition was maintained, and the disposition of imposition of customs duties, etc. on the plaintiff AFK was imposed as shown in the separate sheet 2 and 3 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

(2) Plaintiff AFK filed a request for review, and received a decision as follows.

Results of the decision on the request for examination of the date of the Serial Disposition in the main sentence were made on February 15, 2012 after the re-examination was made on September 27, 2012, and thereafter on May 9, 2012, 2012 after the decision on re-investigation was made on May 3, 2012, 2012; November 4, 2012, 2012;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 23, 53, 74 through 78 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 12 through 15 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

(a) Relation;

Article 19(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22816, Apr. 1, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) that is designed to make a patent for the method of AGC and has been embodied at the time of import, is related to the equipment of this case. However, the Float method is a prior art developed by 1950, the U.K. Handton, and the Hloat source technology is a prior art developed by Cole-french, and it is a prior art of the LGC’s license is not realized even if such patent was used, since it is not a product of this case, the AGC does not design for the imported equipment of this case, but only provides manufacturers with the product of this case with the design of the equipment of this case, the use fee of the equipment of this case is not a key product related to the process of manufacturing and operating No. 3 of No. 1950, Mar. 1, 200.

(b) Terms of transaction;

The terms and conditions of transaction prescribed in Article 19(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act are recognized only when the Plaintiff, the buyer, is unable to purchase the instant facility without paying the royalty to AGC, and in order to purchase the instant facility, the terms and conditions of transaction are recognized only when the royalty should be paid to AGC for the purchase of the instant facility. However, the terms and conditions of the contract for the sale and purchase of facilities do not include the terms and conditions of purchase or the payment of royalty, and the instant license agreement does not allow AGC to purchase only from AGC, the Plaintiffs purchased and installed some facilities necessary for manufacturing from companies other than AGC, and the price of the instant facilities plus the royalty for the use of the right. In addition to the royalty for the use of the instant facilities, the Plaintiffs may purchase the instant facilities by freely exercising the purchase options, and thus there is no possibility of the terms and conditions of transaction.

(c) Distribution of royalties;

The proviso of Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the Notice of this case stipulates that if the entire royalty for the use of a right is related to the facility, only the portion related to the imported facility among the royalty for the use of a right shall be divided and divided in proportion to the royalty for the use of a right. Therefore, the royalty for the use of a right in this case has a part concerning the know-how for fair management, which is not related to the facility in this case, and it is not possible to separately specify

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Facts of recognition;

A. Manufacturing, etc. of the instant facilities

(1) The import transaction level of the instant facilities is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) AGC prepared basic specifications, as indicated in the attached form of basic specifications, which specifically describe the type, structure, scam, scam, production capacity, specifications of components, basic design, etc., and requested manufacturing companies, such as U.S.A., to manufacture them in a way consistent with the purpose of a specific client, and entered into an agreement with the manufacturer on design drawings, return of data, and maintenance of confidentiality. AGC prohibited external outflow of the basic specifications, and received and owned the design drawings from the manufacturer. AGC recovered the basic specifications after the completion of the estimate. AGC had the manufacturer indicate the name of AGC in the design drawings.

(3) With respect to the manufacture of Liber glass, AGC registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office “12 cases, 12 cases, 25 cases, cryp melting and cooling, 4 cases, and 19 cases owned by AGC,” as follows. The instant facilities were subject to AGC’s 19 patents:

A person shall be appointed.

(4) The technical check of U.S. P.C. on November 17, 2014 is written as follows:

The ○○ U.S. Coin in the main text is a typical product that is published in us’s farms, and is manufactured and supplied through the final installation coordination work in the country, after designing each facility in accordance with the basic formation information provided by AGC, preparing a detailed drawing, and preparing and distributing it in accordance with the final installation coordination work in the country. (m) The white-water processing equipment, such as (v) Tynas, Tynas, Tynas, and refining machines, is one of the typical products that are published in us. The ○○ Lycoin manufacturing place is composed of lusium, Tynas, Tynas, and Tynas, and is respectively manufactured in so as to manufacture the white-water for diverse glass manufacturing, and to respond to various kinds of equipment designs.

(5) The Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with AGC, and the terms and conditions of sale and payment, delivery of facilities, transfer of ownership, guarantee, etc. are only prescribed, and there is no provision concerning patent and know-how related to equipment.

(6) In addition to the instant facilities, the Plaintiffs filed an import declaration with the Defendants on the facilities constituting a manufacturing process as follows.

The name of the exporting country of the foreign supplier and the foreign supplier in the table No. 15, 21712062001383, the name of the exporting country of the foreign supplier and the foreign supplier in the main sentence, and the name of the foreign supplier and the name of the foreign supplier in the table No. 15 2171206206802535, 21712068025300000000000003, the name of the foreign supplier and the foreign supplier in the table No. 215, 217120620083,000084 GLD ZDNE ZNA (UTRA) MUTRAL 2303030,71273030,03000,0000 MUTRA MUTRAL MUTRAL MUUG MUG MUUEE

(b) Basic contract for business trip guidance (SV);

(1) The Plaintiffs entered into a business trip guidance (SV basic contract) with AGC, and were dispatched by AGC for the actual guidance on production, operation, etc., manufacturing lines management and guidance, installation works, maintenance and guidance, and quality control overall guidance, etc.

2. The term "contract work" means the on-site guidance for the establishment, assembly, operation, the annual finishing system (DP14 Madra) of liquid glass plates that AGC dispatchs SV to a factory or an annex office of AFK, on-site guidance for inspection work, etc., and detailed matters shall be as specified in the attached Table 1. 4. The term "SV" means the employees of AGC who send AGC to a factory or an annex office of AFK for work in order to carry out the contract work. 1. 1. 6. 6. 6. 1. 6. 6. 1. 1. 6. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 6. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 20,006. 2G 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. . . 2. . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(2) To AGC, Plaintiff ADO paid a total of KRW 2.7 billion, and Plaintiff AFK paid a total of KRW 54.8 billion at the business trip guidance service cost.

(c) Provisional disposition lawsuit by AGC;

(1) On December 3, 2003, AGC submitted a complaint against Toldo Engineering (Toledo Engine) to the Oral State Court of Oralian (2005WL646076) as follows:

AGC, contained in the main text, is the only manufacturing company that currently has high quality TFT-LS glass production know-how by using the transformation of its exclusive Float method. Toluth engineering and its subsidiaries are carrying on the business of designing and manufacturing equipment of free sea-melting and various other processes. The 0GC has grounds to think that Toluth Engineering, which is a manufacturing company of glass production equipment, is an abuse of the AGC’s know-how and involvement in unfair competition. AGC, even though it is aware that such information is the assets of AGC, has obtained information on the NoGC’s know-how’s know-how’s know that it had been used from a third party for designing, manufacturing and installing the Floatbbbbth facilities. AGC also has the grounds to think that it was currently using such information for designing, manufacturing and installing the Float-backedth facilities. AG engineering currently claims for a temporary injunction order to discontinue the use of the information and to prevent the use of the information.

(2) On March 21, 2005, the U.S. Oralian court decided that “Tolth engineering and its subsidiaries shall not use any exclusive Flat glass manufacturing technology acquired from Schott Operations for any purpose (including any purpose related to designing, manufacturing, installing, shipping, exporting, or delivering, etc. of the Flatth facilities), (a) ownership by AGC, (b) the AGC and Schott Co., Ltd. specified in the LAS Convention that limits the use and disclosure of such technology, and (c) Tolthle engineering will not use any exclusive Flat glass manufacturing technology acquired from Schott.”

(d) Statements, etc. of related persons;

(1) On October 12, 201, Plaintiff AFK’s director in charge of accounting, financial affairs, and accounting, and financial affairs, Nonparty 1, etc. stated as follows at the time of examining the corporation.

There is no letter or estimate related to the introduction of the Table ○ Facilities included in the main text. There is no head of the facility team department, but the decision on the introduction of the facilities has been made within the AGC. Next, the Plaintiff AFK adopted a resolution to introduce the facilities by opening a board of directors at the AFK. The head office at the AGC is examined where there are several companies in the Republic of Korea in Japan. After examining where, where there are several companies in the AGC head office in Japan, it is possible to introduce the facilities, then the board of directors will make a decision at the AFK after the decision is made in Korea. The AFK made a decision that ○GC will make an investment and made the Plaintiff AFK. The facility sales contract shall be prepared in the AGC. The facility sales contract shall be prepared in the AGC. Since the facility re-price price is prepared in the AGC, the Plaintiff AFK receives the amount as it is. Since the Plaintiff AFK sells and the sale price is the form of purchasing the Plaintiff AFK.

(2) On October 10, 2014, Nonparty 2, a professor of the Korea National University, presented the following opinions on the instant facilities.

The term of validity of Cring, which was registered in the 1960s or the 1990s, has already expired, and the core type technology of the invention has already been published since 1992, using the Fuison method in Japan since 1999. The Float glass is commercialized for the first time using the Float method in 196, and its history is considerably limited to 18 years, and it should be very exclusive location in the 190s or less of the 190s or less of the 190s or less of the 190s or less of the 190s or less of the 190s or less of the 1st century's or less of the 1st century's or more of the 190s or less of the 1st or less of the 1st or less of the 1st or less of the 1st or less of the 1st or less of the 1st or less of the 1st or less of the 1st or less of the 1st or less of the 1st or less 1st or less of the production-MM.

E. Opinions, etc. of tax authorities regarding the application of the instant notice

(1) On September 27, 2012, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service rendered a re-audit decision as follows.

Since the royalty of this case was paid for all patents and know-hows related to the whole process from the development of products and the selection of raw materials to the inspection and packing of finished products in order to manufacture the glass board which is the final finished product, the disposal agency shall conduct a method of calculating the royalty of this case so that the total royalty of the royalty of this case can be added only to the part corresponding to the main equipment of this case. The disposal agency shall determine the royalty of this case by re-auditing the method of calculating the royalty of this case so that the total royalty of the royalty of this case can be added to the part corresponding to the main equipment of this case. - Even if the royalty of this case currently used is primarily determined to be the know-how related to the operation and maintenance of the equipment, it is difficult to view that the royalty of this case was installed in advance in consideration of all know-how, even if the royalty of this case is designed for the use of the equipment of this case from the total equipment of this case to the method of calculating the royalty of all the royalty of this case.

(2) On August 20, 2014, Nonparty 3, who was a public official in charge at the time, stated in this court that “The Plaintiffs, on the documents, calculated a separate rate of 7% profit from the facility price to AGC. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs were continuously negotiated with the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no provision under the Customs Act that can separate the portion of the royalty to be entered in the pure manufacturing process and the amount of the royalty to be distributed for the manufacturing facility.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's statements, 24 through 39, 44, 56, 58 through 61, 64, 86, 93 (including paper numbers), Eul's statements, 16, 18 through 23, 26, 27, 28, 34 through 40 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

5. Determination

A. Relevant statutes

(1) Article 30(1)4 of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “The dutiable value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the following amounts to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer for the goods sold to be exported to Korea: Provided, That the addition of the amount calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree, which is paid as the price for the use of patent rights, utility model rights, design rights, trademark rights, and other rights similar thereto, shall be based on objective and quantitative data, and if there is no such data, the dutiable value shall not be determined by the method prescribed in this Article, and Articles 31 through 35 shall be determined by the method prescribed in this Article.”

(2) Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides for “other rights similar thereto” under Article 30(1)4 of the Customs Act, and Article 19(2) provides for “the production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information, etc. useful for business activities, which are not legal rights but economically valuable and kept confidential by considerable effort.” Article 30(1)2 of the Customs Act provides that “The price for using patent rights, utility model rights, design rights, trademark rights, and similar rights, which shall be added to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer of the relevant goods pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Customs Act, shall be the amount paid directly or indirectly by the buyer according to the terms and conditions of the relevant goods.” In the application of the provisions of paragraph (2), if the royalty is for facilities, machinery and equipment (including parts, etc. with major characteristics) designed suitable for licensing the method, the royalty shall be deemed related to the relevant goods.”

(3) In full view of the above provisions, in order to add the royalty to the customs value of imported goods, the royalty is related to the relevant goods (related to the goods) and the buyer is obliged to pay the royalty to the relevant goods under the terms and conditions of transaction.

B. Regarding relevance

(1) In order to recognize the relationship between the instant facility and the instant royalty, the pertinent imported facility should be designed to practice a patent that is eligible for royalty (Article 19(3)1(a) and (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act). In other words, a patent eligible for royalty should have been embodied and embodied in the relevant facility at the time of import declaration.

Meanwhile, as long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the instrument, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the statement is denied. In the event there is any difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the instrument is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret the document in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstances leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753, Jun. 11, 2002).

(2) According to the Agreement on the License of the instant case, Article 3 provides the Plaintiffs with a right to use the instant equipment, “GC is granting a license for manufacturing and operating know-how,” Article 1 provides that “this refers to patents and know-hows recorded in the separate sheet.” The separate sheet includes patents and know-how that are directly related to the manufacture of the instant equipment, ② The instant equipment constitutes a series of manufacturing process, ③ the manufacture of freeboard equipment and equipment owned by the AGC, ③ the manufacture and processing of freeboard equipment and equipment, ③ the manufacture and processing of freeboard equipment and equipment were written on the AGM equipment and the manufacture and processing of freeboard equipment and equipment of the AGM 7 separate from the manufacture and processing of freeboard equipment and equipment, ④ the manufacture and processing of freeboard equipment and equipment, ④ the manufacture and processing of freeboard equipment and equipment of the AGM 7 separate from the manufacture and processing of freeboard equipment and equipment, and the Plaintiffs appear to have been subject to separate manufacture and processing of freeboard equipment and equipment, excluding the manufacture and processing of freeboard equipment.

C. Regarding the nature of transaction terms

(1) The royalty paid directly or indirectly by the buyer according to the terms and conditions of transaction for the pertinent goods is included in the dutiable value of the relevant goods. Here, “the royalty shall be paid according to the terms and conditions of transaction for the relevant goods” means the case where the buyer pays the royalty to the seller to purchase the imported goods and the buyer has no choice of purchase for the imported goods (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du2547, Oct. 26, 2006; 91Nu7958, Apr. 27, 1993).

(2) The health stand, ① AGC exercises the voting rights of 100% against the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs can be deemed to be the self-contributation of AGC. The Plaintiffs are rarely able to purchase equipment regardless of the intent of AGC (under the testimony of Non-Party 4, the agreement is to be made jointly with AGC, but it is difficult to believe that it is in the relationship with the Plaintiffs.) ② AGC is the only company of mass production of glass plates by Float method except LG chemical, and almost little of them are free to pay the royalty for the use of the right in this case. ③ According to Non-Party 1’s statement, the introduction of the facility in this case was determined by AGC, ④ According to the annexed Forms 2 and 4 of the Rason Agreement, the Plaintiffs were not able to freely use the equipment in this case’s purchase of equipment in addition to the purchase of equipment in this case, and the Plaintiffs were able to freely use the equipment in addition to the purchase of equipment in this case.

D. As to the pro rata distribution of the royalty

(1) Relevant provisions

Article 3-4 of the Notice of this case provides that "the method for calculating royalty determined by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service" in Article 19(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides that "if the imported goods are related only to the imported goods even though the goods are parts, raw materials, components, etc. of goods to be produced in Korea, the full amount of royalty paid in relation thereto shall be added: Provided, That among royalty paid for the use of rights, the amount of royalty calculated by multiplying the royalty paid for the use of rights by the ratio of the cost of the relevant imported goods to the price of the finished goods to the cost of the relevant imported goods to the cost of production, other activities, etc. in Korea not related to the imported goods." subparagraph 3 provides that if the imported goods are facilities, machinery and equipment (including parts, etc. with the major characteristics), the full amount of royalty paid in relation thereto shall be added: Provided, That royalty for the use of rights is a price for the entire process of producing the finished goods or manufacturing, and in cases of imported goods, the cost of the use fee for facilities, etc. shall be multiplied by the ratio of the royalty for the relevant imported goods.

In addition, subparagraph 4 (a) provides that where goods, which are the cause of the payment of the royalty, are repeatedly imported for a long time in the case of goods falling under the proviso of subparagraph 2, the adjusted amount for the pro rata distribution of the royalty for the use of a right 】 total royalty 】 the price of the relevant imported goods ± the price of the relevant imported goods ± the price of the relevant manufactured goods ± the relevant imported goods ± the price of the relevant imported goods ± the fixed amount ± the relevant imported goods ± the price of the relevant imported goods in the event that the imported goods fall under the proviso of subparagraph 3 are repeatedly imported for a long time, the adjusted amount for the pro rata distribution of the royalty for the use of a right 】 total royalty 】 the price of the relevant imported facilities ± the

Meanwhile, in a case where a delegated administrative agency specifically provides for the matters to be the contents of an administrative rule in the form of administrative rules in which the delegated administrative agency does not specify the procedure or method of the exercise of its authority in granting authority to a specific administrative agency to determine the specific contents of the statute, such administrative rule is deemed to have effect as an external binding legal order, unless it goes beyond the delegated limit of the pertinent statute (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6261 delivered on July 23, 199). The instant notice constitutes an external binding legal order in combination with Article 19(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act.

(2) Interpretation of the proviso of Article 3-4(3) of the Notice of this case

In light of the following circumstances, pursuant to Article 19(2) and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, Article 3-4(3) of the Notice of this case shall be construed as “where the royalty for use of a right meets all the requirements for the relation to the imported equipment and the terms and conditions of transaction (if a patent and a know-how is delayed for a facility), the entire “rights for use of a right” shall be added to the taxable value of the imported facility if the entire “the relevant import facility” is related only to the relevant import facility (this question), but if the royalty for use of a right is paid with respect to the entire equipment including the pertinent import facility, the total taxable value of the imported facility shall not be added to the taxable value of the imported facility, and only the royalty for use

① Article 30(1) of the Customs Act and Article 19(2) and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provide that only the royalty that satisfies both the relationship with the imported goods and the terms and conditions of transaction shall be added to the dutiable value. As such, Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the Public Notice of this case should be deemed to provide for the detailed details for calculating the amount to be added to the dutiable value of the imported goods from among the “user fee meeting

② Article 3-4 subparag. 2 of the Notice of this case provides that "where the relevant right is related only to imported goods, even though imported goods are parts, raw materials, components, etc. of goods to be produced in the Republic of Korea, the entire amount of royalty paid in relation thereto shall be added to "the case where the relevant right is related only to imported goods". The proviso provides that "if the royalty is related to imported goods, among the royalty paid, the cost of production in the Republic of Korea that is not related to imported parts, etc., and other activities, such as business, is included, the royalty paid shall be added to the royalty calculated by multiplying the royalty paid by the ratio of the cost of the relevant imported parts, etc. to the price of the finished goods to the price of the finished goods." If the royalty paid is related to goods other than imported goods, the royalty paid shall be excluded from the royalty paid (the cost of production in the Republic of Korea, other activities, etc.)

③ The term “manner” in Article 19(3)1 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act refers to the method of manufacturing and manufacturing a specific product. However, import parts are completed by applying patents and know-hows on the physical foundation of the parts, as they are parts. As such, the subject of patent and know-how are fixed. While the facilities of this case are used to manufacture new products through chemical processing, it is recognized that the independent area is not dependent on products such as creation technology, driving technology, inspection, etc., but on products such as patent and know-how. Thus, it is different from import parts.

④ In the instant disposition, the interpretation that “the royalty includes all the cost of production and other activities in Korea, which is not embodied in the facility,” such as the instant disposition, is unreasonable that the entire royalty not recognized related to the import facility is included in the dutiable value.

⑤ ‘관세’는 수입물품에 대해서만 과세되는 ‘대물세’이기 때문에 유체물이 아닌 권리나 정보 등 무체재산권에 대해서는 과세할 수 없음이 원칙이나, 무체재산권의 내용이 수입물품에 체화되어 수입물품의 가격의 일부를 구성하는 경우에는 관세의 부과대상이 되는 점, 이에 따라 관세법 제30조 제1항 은 수입물품 과세가격에 가산할 수 있는 요소를 특정하고 있는 점, 수입자가 먼저 외국의 특허권자로부터 특정제품의 제조공정에 관한 특허제법의 사용권리를 얻고, 그 대가로 그 제법에 의거 생산한 제품의 수량에 따라 권리사용료를 지급하기로 하고, 제법의 구현방편으로서 특허제법 사용계약과는 별도로 다른 업자로부터 특허제법을 적용하기에 적합하게 고안된 기계를 수입할 경우, 기계가 특허제법을 적용하기에 적합하게 만들어진 것이라고 하더라도, 그 권리사용료 지급은 기계의 판매조건이 아니라 특허제법에 기인한 것이므로, 이러한 경우에는 기계의 과세가격에 가산할 수 없는 점, ‘관세 및 무역에 관한 일반협정 제7조의 시행에 관한 협정 및 의정서’ 제8조 제3항에 대한 주해는 “제8조 규정에 따른 가산조건과 관련하여 객관적이고 수량화할 수 있는 자료가 없는 경우, 거래가격은 제1조의 규정에 따라 결정될 수 없다. (중략) 만약 권리사용료가 일부분은 수입물품에, 나머지 부분은 해당 수입물품과 전혀 관련이 없는 다른 요소에, 부분적으로 근거하고 있다면(중략), 권리사용료에 대한 가산을 하려는 시도는 부적절하다.”고 규정하고 있는 점{Where objective and qualifiable data do not exist with regard to the additions required to be made under the provisions of Article 8, the transaction value cannot be determined under the provisions of Article 1. (중략) If the royalty is based partially on the imported goods and partially on other factors which have nothing to do with the imported goods(중략), it would be inappropriate to attempt to make an addition for the royalty.} 등을 고려할 때, 수입물품에 체화되어 수입물품의 가격의 일부를 구성하고 있다고 보이는 범위를 넘어설 경우 과세가격에 권리사용료 전액을 가산할 수 없다.

(3) Formation of the royalty of this case

According to the separate sheet among the license agreement of this case, the patents, the small-sized know-how, and the small-how are listed, and the patents and know-how regarding the production of the instant facilities are also indicated. Meanwhile, in light of the following circumstances, the license agreement of this case is deemed to provide the fair management know-how and the business operation know-how in addition to the production of the instant facilities. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the royalty of this case was provided in return for the production of the instant facilities and the fair management know-how and the business operation know-how.

① Comprehensively taking account of Nonparty 2, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6’s written opinions (Evidence No. 87 and 88), Nonparty 2’s statements, and Nonparty 7’s statements, glass plates are products with a super-detailed special glass, and thus, defects may occur due to low environmental changes. Therefore, it is important to manage and maintain the manufacturing process so that it can be manufactured in a fair manner without a good. The patent for manufacturing technology is very limited to companies that can produce glass plates despite the publicly notified public construction method. The results of accumulation of the composite and melting test results of raw materials for which the plaintiffs asserted in the manufacturing process management know-how, the results of research by the companies belonging to AGC, the inferior causes of contamination, adjustment of the materials, the condition of burning, the observation and analysis of combustion, the management of fireproof materials, the adjustment of the growth and the degree of injury of the No. 99, the self-regulation and management of No. 1990, etc. are considered separately from the combination’s equipment.

② The plaintiffs are corporations in a special relationship under the actual control of AGC. The plaintiffs import the facilities of this case according to the purpose of producing and selling glass plates by the total production method provided by AGC. According to the facility sales contract (No. 26 through 37) does not stipulate the terms and conditions for the payment of the royalty of this case and the purchase of facilities, and appears to include all patents and know-hows under the license agreement. According to the patents and know-how stated in the separate sheet of the License Agreement, as well as those necessary for the manufacture and operation of the facilities of this case, the selection and association of raw materials, raw material input management, burning management, mechanical operation, inspection, cutting, packaging, testing and analysis, etc., the plaintiffs merely provide patents and know-hows with respect to the entire production of LV equipment of this case, but all of which are included in the supply of equipment and know-how business trip to the defendants, including the supply of equipment and know-how for compensation for damages under the license agreement of this case.

③ The first and second license agreement entered into force from January 1, 2009, the third license agreement entered into force with 5% or 10% of net sales, the third license agreement entered into with 8-30% of operating profit rate, and the fourth license agreement entered into with 8-43% of operating profit rate, which is considerably higher than that of ordinary patents and know-hows, and when concluding the fourth license agreement, the fourth license agreement entered in an additional statement on the “business operating know-how” (which means the know-how for operating enterprises in which the AGC manufactures and sells products, and those other than small know-how and annual know-how). The fourth license agreement entered into force from January 1, 2009, approximately KRW 30 billion of operating profit from 209 to 200 billion of operating profit from the Plaintiffs’ increase in operating profit from 205 to 208.

④ In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the tax authorities initially determined that “it is difficult to deem that the instant facility was designed in consideration of all know-how. Therefore, the instant public notice cannot be applied as it is, thus, the royalty that may be added to the dutiable value is re-determination of property.”

(4) The possibility of dividing the royalty of this case

Since the royalty for the use of the right in this case is the price for patent and know-how for the production, process management, and business operation of the facility in this case, it is necessary to separately calculate the royalty for the use of the right in this case. However, as stated in the evidence Nos. 30 through 33 (including the virtual number), the Defendants also examined various measures, but did not distinguish them (in conclusion, the Defendants paid the royalty for the use of the right in this case only to patent and know-how under the license agreement, and interpreted that the royalty for the use of the right in this case was not included in the fair management know-how. Accordingly, as pointed out by the Plaintiffs, the royalty for the use of the right in this case, which is added to the price for the facility in this case, brought about about about about about about about about about 1.7 times the facility price, and the evidence submitted cannot be separated, so the entire disposition in this case can only be revoked.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Cho Han-chul (Presiding Judge)