logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.01.28 2015누44532
관세 등 경정거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion at the appellate court as stated in the following subparagraphs. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 2014, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant protocol projector should be classified into No. 8528.51 (Monitoring used exclusively or mainly for an automatic data processing system) on the ground that at the 54th session of the WCO HS Committee, monitors with multiple monitors for computers and visual devices should be classified into No. 8528.51 (Monitoring used exclusively or mainly for an automatic data processing system).

However, even though the case was found to be the "Monitoring that is mainly used in the automatic data processing system" with respect to the "Monitoring," which is capable of being used by linking to the automatic data processing machine in the decision of the HS Committee, etc., it is not only the tariff classification for a specific monitor that is constantly connected with the automatic data processing machine and has the structure, function, characteristics, etc. that makes it possible to receive the video signal, but also cannot be deemed to be legally binding. Thus, the tariff classification of the projector of this case, which differs from the type, function, characteristics, etc. of the device, cannot be different solely on such circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Du23078 Decided February 21, 2014). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff amended the 2017 nomenclature to “projectors (8528.61) directly connected and designed to be used in the automatic data processing system” and used exclusively or principally for the automatic data processing system.

arrow