A. Whether the use of a ship constitutes import under the Customs Act in case where the ship is used after acquiring ownership or right to dispose of it by the so-called convenient method

(b) Whether it constitutes fraud or other wrongful methods to import a vessel which is not permitted to import, and to report as if it entered into the port for repair purposes;

A. It is reasonable in light of the substance over form principle to view that a person residing in our country acquires the ownership or disposal right of a ship in a foreign country and furthermore, if the ship is offered for use on the part of our country, it constitutes imports subject to the imposition of customs duties even if the ship has not yet acquired the nationality of our country. Thus, it is also reasonable in light of the substance over form principle to regard that the ship constitutes imports subject to the imposition of customs duties even if it is offered for use on the part of our country. Thus, when a domestic resident acquires a ship in a foreign country by making a company on the part of documents in a foreign country through the so-called convenient method, it constitutes imports under the Customs Act even

B. The so-called “convenition” system that sets up a personal name or a corporation in the name of a country where the shipowner belongs or a country where the drilling company actually engaged in the operation of the ship is located, which sets up a ship under the name of the country and displays the flag of the country, cannot be deemed to be unlawful. However, if it is used as a means of evading customs duties, it constitutes fraud or other improper means under Article 180(1) of the Customs Duties Act. In particular, an import license for the import of a ship without obtaining an import license constitutes a fraudulent method, which is an element of the crime of evading customs duties, and thus, if it was reported as if it was entered into a ship for repair purposes, it constitutes a fraudulent or other improper means, which is an element of the crime of evading customs duties.

(a) Article 2(1) of the Customs Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 93Do212 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong1994Sang). Supreme Court Decision 82Nu328 delivered on October 11, 1983 (Gong1983,166). Supreme Court Decision 84Do782 delivered on June 26, 1984 (Gong1984,1381). Supreme Court Decision 89Do2587 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong190,1022). 93Do689 delivered on May 25, 1993

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 93No212 delivered on July 15, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

(1) As to Defendant’s ground of appeal

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Customs Act provides that "any goods which arrive in the Republic of Korea from a foreign country shall be taken into Korea as one form of import on which a customs duty is imposed, and "any goods taken in Korea" refers to goods actually released from detention under the Customs Act and entering into a free distribution state (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do689 delivered on May 25, 1993). Since a ship has distinct characteristics such as those entering and departing from Korea and departing from Korea, the ship's territory is not deemed to have been imported only by entering Korea's territory, and even a ship which has not obtained an import license shall be deemed to fall under import under the Customs Act only when it acquired and provided for the use of Korean nationality.

However, on the other hand, it is reasonable in light of the principle of substantial taxation to view that a person residing in Korea actually acquired ownership or right to dispose of a ship located in a foreign country and provided the ship for entry into and use in Korea, even if the ship does not acquire Korean nationality yet, it is practically subject to the imposition of customs duties (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu328, Oct. 11, 1983). Thus, when acquiring a ship of a foreign country by a domestic resident in Korea, it constitutes revenue under the Customs Act even if the ship was registered as owned by the company only in a document in a foreign country by means of so-called convenience method and the ship was brought into Korea and used in Korea.

In addition, even if the so-called convenience system that displays the flag of a ship in the name of a country is established in a separate state from the country where the owner of the ship belongs or a country where the ship actually is located, and the so-called convenience system that displays the flag of the country itself is used as a means of evading customs duties, it constitutes fraudulent and other unlawful means under Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act. In particular, the import of goods without an import license constitutes an element of the crime of evading customs duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do782, Jun. 26, 1984). Thus, if the owner of the ship imports a ship through the convenience method as above and falsely reported as if he entered the ship for repair purposes, it is insufficient to view that it constitutes a fraudulent or other unlawful means, which is an element of the crime of evading customs duties, and if it is used as a means of evading customs duties, it constitutes an illegal act, it constitutes an illegal act. (See Supreme Court Decision 84Do2587, Mar. 27, 1990).

However, according to the first instance court and the court below's determination, the ship of this case was formally registered as the ownership of the mixed nationality company, and was registered as the ownership of the mixed nationality company, but in fact, the defendant was aware that the building site of this ship was not more than 10 years and was unable to obtain an import license, and the defendant made the above mixed registry company, thereby making the above mixed registry company, and made the above mixed registry company, disguisedly entering Busan port as if the above company purchased the ship of this case and filed a port entry report, which entered for the purpose of navigation, and thus, it constitutes a crime of evading customs duties.

This Court Decision 93Do689 delivered on May 25, 1993, cited by the theory of the lawsuit, concerning the case where the defendant does not correspond to the de facto owner of a ship with convenience, and thus cannot be viewed as contrary to the above legal principles.

The judgment of the court below with the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the concept of import under the Customs Act or the legal principles as a crime of evading customs duties, which affected the interpretation and application of statutes. There is no reason to argue.

(2) As to the ground of appeal by the joint defendant corporation

Since the joint defendants corporation of the original judgment was convicted in the original judgment but did not file an appeal within the period of appeal, and it is apparent that the part of the original judgment against the joint defendants corporation of the original judgment was established and confirmed, it is not further determined on the grounds of appeal submitted jointly by the joint defendants corporation of the original judgment

(3) Accordingly, Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)