The term "import" in the Customs Act refers to the entry of goods into our country from a foreign country (bonded area where goods are taken from a bonded area) and the import of goods in a special form under Article 7 (10) 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of Trade Business Act (Presidential Decree No. 4496 of Jan. 1, 700) may not be deemed to have been imported into our country in a situation where the goods exist in a third country.

For the purpose of this Act, the term "import" means that goods are brought into our country from a foreign country (bonded area where goods are taken over from a foreign country) and the import of goods in a special form under Article 7 (10) 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trade Business Act (Presidential Decree No. 4496 of Jan. 1, 700) may not be deemed to have been imported into our country in a situation where the goods exist in

Article 2 of the Customs Act, Article 138 of the Customs Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Business Act

Korea Shipbuilding Corporation

Busan District Court Decision 70Ra239 delivered on April 26, 1972

The reappeal is dismissed.

Re-appellant's re-appeal ground is examined.

In this case, even though the appellant obtained a license from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy for the importation of the 9,000 boxes at issue, the re-appellant's "open Port" refers to "import under the Customs Act" means that goods are brought into Korea from a foreign country (bonded area where goods are taken from a bonded area) (see Article 2 and Article 138 of the Customs Act). (See Article 138 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Act) is imported in a special form under Article 7, subparagraph 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Act, so that the goods can not be deemed to be imported into Korea in a third country. In this case, the re-appellant's "Baits 9,000 persons were loaded into the re-appellant's exported fishing vessels at issue in this case and were taken over by the re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's domestic trade company within the 2nd century, and it is reasonable to dismiss the re-appellant's decision to grant a fine for negligence for negligence of 10.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Na-dong, Ma-dong, and Ma-won Park Jae-won