Customs Brokers and persons subject to collection under Article 5 of the former Goods Tax Act;

In this Act (Law No. 166 of Dec. 1, 500), a person who is subject to collection of goods under Article 5 of this Act (Act No. 166 of Dec. 1, 50) means a person who takes over the goods without distinguishing whether the person is the owner

Article 5 of the former Goods Tax Act

Unlimited Partnership Corporation

Head of Incheon Customs Office

Seoul High Court Decision 61Na126 delivered on March 6, 1962

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

As an appellant, the plaintiff, as a customs cargo handler, takes a customs clearance procedure for the goods under his/her own name and takes them out from a bonded area under his/her own name upon entrustment of the owner of the goods, will examine the issue of appeal that the plaintiff falls under the seal of the former Goods Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Goods Tax Act") and constitutes the seal of the plaintiff under Article 5 (1) of the former Goods Tax Act.

In light of the purport of the main sentence of Article 5 of the former Customs Act, the goods taken out in a bonded area shall be collected from the sealr in response to the price or volume of the goods taken out from the bonded area. The purpose of the tax collection is to secure the receipt of the tax by imposing on the sealr the goods taken out from the bonded area, and there is no distinction between the sealr and the sealr. Thus, if the Plaintiff filed an import declaration on his own behalf without indicating that he is the other person as the cargo handler, and then carried out the goods, the person liable for the payment of the goods shall not be the owner of the goods.

Nevertheless, the court below, however, held that the court below erred in the disposition of imposing the difference in the customs duties on the goods under the premise that the above person who is authorized to dispose of the goods, such as the owner of the goods, is the person who is entrusted with the owner of the goods and actually acts as his agent, and the cargo handler who actually takes the goods as his agent is not included in this case, was erroneous in interpreting the person subject to collection of the customs duties under Article 5 of the former Customs Duties Act, and therefore, the court below did not review and decide whether the plaintiff's import declaration of the goods and taking the seal on his own account of the fact that the court below did not reverse the judgment in this regard.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the response by the plaintiff's attorney against Dora to the dissenting opinion is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all the judges who participated in the original trial in order to re-examine the case.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags