The customs collector promulgated the following day ( April 8, 1969) with respect to high-frequency guards, the import declaration of April 7, 1969 was filed by the Plaintiff, and the enforcement thereof is retroactive by applying subparagraph 446 of the Notice of the Ministry of Finance and Economy from April 1, 1969, and any disposition imposing customs duties cannot be deemed as a disposition which is null and void on the ground that the defect is significant and apparent.

Attorney Jung-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na2,385 delivered on July 6, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s agent.

According to the Financial Notice No. 446 (Public Notice No. 1969, Apr. 8, 1969, but effective from April 1, 1969) to be applied as of April 7, 1969 to the head of Incheon Customs Office by importing high-frequency contact equipment as a problem in this case, the court below recognized that the above articles are not included in the items subject to tax exemption because they are electrical-use of non-low-resistant heat resistant materials.

There is no need to consider whether the above articles are subject to duty exemption under the provisions of No. 545 of the Notice of the Ministry of Finance, which was enforced before April 1, 1969 (this is the enforcement of its promulgations, September 23, 1968).

The issue is that the following day is promulgated with respect to the high-frequency contact period of this case for which the head of Incheon Customs Office filed an import declaration April 7, 1969, and its enforcement took place retroactively from April 1, 1969, and applying subparagraph 446 of the Treasury Notice No. 446 of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, which took effect retroactively from this time, the above goods are deemed non-tax-exempt items. However, the disposition imposing customs duties can not be said to be a disposition which is void as a result of significant and apparent defects.

In the case of this case where the court below erred in holding that the above disposition of imposing customs duties is valid as alleged above, and it does not affect the judgment of the court below claiming delivery of the above machinery on the premise that the above disposition of imposing customs duties is null and void by a legitimate administrative litigation. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff claims restitution of unjust enrichment as the conjunctive claim in this case, it is premised on the premise that the above disposition of imposing customs duties is null and void, and it cannot be deemed null and void as it does not constitute unjust enrichment in this case where there is no fact that the disposition of imposing customs duties is revoked.

In short, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the views of the judges involved.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)