1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the modification of Chapters 5 through 18 of the judgment of the court of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Article 225(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13427, Jul. 27, 2015; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”) (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”) provides that the disposition of value-added tax imposed on the second period of 2010 among the dispositions in this case shall be applicable, while Article 225(1) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “value-added tax imposed on the second period of 2010”) provides that tobacco consumption tax shall not be imposed on the person liable to pay tobacco consumption tax, and Article 225(1) of the former Local Tax Act provides that tobacco manufacturers are exempt from the duty to pay tobacco consumption tax, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 225(1) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010101).

Article 49 is liable to pay tobacco consumption tax on tobacco taken out of a manufacturing place (paragraph (1)), and the duty-free tobacco pursuant to Article 54 is taken out of the manufacturing place and then sold, sold, or sold without being used for the intended purpose.