1. The Defendant’s imposition of each duty against the Plaintiff on each date indicated in the separate disposition shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 31, 2011, the Plaintiff, a person engaging in wholesale and retail business, and export and import business of agricultural products under B, filed a declaration of the trade price of USD 303 per ton ton, USD 487 per ton ton, and USD 240 per ton ton ton, as the exporter, imported from the Taesung Food Co. Ltd. Corporation of China (U.S.). The Plaintiff filed a declaration of import on September 23, 201 through 47 occasions from September 23, 201 to February 29, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as "the goods of this case" in total of the goods described in attached Forms 1 through 47 shall be referred to as "the goods of this case").

The defendant denied the return price of the plaintiff on the import declaration as a result of the prior examination of the tax amount, on the ground that it cannot be recognized as a legitimate transaction price. Around January 1, 2013, the defendant determined that the dutiable value of the plaintiff cannot be recognized as a legitimate transaction price, as shown in the attached disposition, USD 678.9, USD 9, USD 903.22, USD 1,210 per ton, respectively, in accordance with Article 32 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 11602, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and notified the plaintiff of the correction of the total customs duty of USD 2,234,948,280 per ton by the method prescribed in Article 35 of the former Customs Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 20, 2012 and January 30, 2013. However, each dismissal decision was rendered on March 21, 2013 and May 13, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant violated the underlying taxation principle. ① The plaintiff's import declaration price is lower than the mountainous district price. ② The import declaration price for the rise in particular, is not only the purchase price for the Chinese government and the rise price for the Chinese Grand International Futures Market.