beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting rectification of KRW 4,222,930, which the Plaintiff rendered on April 29, 2013, is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From May 13, 2011 to February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff, who is an import declaration and customs-paid wholesale retailer of agricultural, livestock and livestock products, imported the frozen livestock products by cutting off the parts of pigs’s satisfaction, which were classified into HSK 0203.29-900 (other swine’s 25%) according to the Tariff Schedules, and filed an import declaration with the Defendant and paid KRW 54,716,50 in total the customs duties as follows:
On May 13, 2011, 13, 200 23,45,45,200 23,452,609,22525,22525,652,652,308,305, 207.30, 23,0008, 47,80.8%8,80,68,685, 305, 207, 305, 208, 47,80,68, 942,942,542,540 on June 9, 201, 201, or 15,00,00,000,000,000, 630,681, 942,942,542,540, 2308, 201, 208, 2017
B. On the other hand, from March 23, 2009 to August 30, 2010, the head of Sungnam filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above rejection disposition under the Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap10790 on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff imported agricultural and livestock products stored in freezing from the front and rear bones of pigs to some parts of the bones of pigs (see attached Table 1 “the structure of swine satisfaction”; and (b) the Plaintiff paid customs duties after importing the same item as the above paragraph A; and (c) the Plaintiff filed a claim against the head of Sungnam Customs Office for correction on the ground that “the pertinent livestock products fall under HS 0206.49-1000 (the base rate for food and 18%) under the Tariff Schedules; and (d) the Plaintiff rejected it; (e) the Plaintiff sought revocation of the above rejection disposition on the ground that he/she received the above bones’s “the bones from the upper bones of pigs to the upper bones of pigs on May 25, 2012.”
The Seoul High Court appealed as 2012Nu18594, but the said appellate court dismissed the appeal to the same purport on November 23, 2012, and the said judgment was made on December 15, 2012.