E. E.C. Roymplas Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Lee Jae-de et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seoul Customs Office and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Gangnam-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 29, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap576, 2014Guhap67529 (merged) Decided January 30, 2015

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

A. The head of the Seoul Customs Office imposed customs duties, etc. on the Plaintiff AB Roympio Co., Ltd., as stated in the attached disposition No. 1;

B. The head of Daegu Customs Office imposed customs duties, etc. as stated in the separate disposition Nos. 2 and 3, imposed on the Plaintiff Sychoviral Republic of Korea Co., Ltd.

All cancellations.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs

(1) On March 8, 2005, Plaintiff ADO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff ADO”) produces and sells L CD glass plates (2.5-7mm in thickness x x x x x x x x x 2m in length) (hereinafter “Plaintiff AFK”) to a foreign-invested enterprise (100% in equity ratio), which was established by an investment by a Japanese-invested company (hereinafter “AGC”) on March 8, 2005. Plaintiff AFC and a foreign-invested company incorporated jointly with the Korea Electrical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff AFK”) have the equity ratio of Plaintiff AFC on June 17, 2004, Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff AFK”), which is a finished product, by purchasing, finishing, and processing straw x x x x x m x x x x x x x x x m x x m x x x x x m x x x 337%.

(2) L CD glass plates are produced through the process of melting glass in the form of plate after mixing glass raw materials and then melting glass in the form of plate. The plaintiffs use the “Float Method” in the so-called so-called “Flat Method” in the so-called so-called so-called “Flat Method”. The plaintiffs use the so-called “Flat Method” in the so-called so-called “Flat Method” by mixing the glass raw materials, such as company (SiO2) and tin (CaO) with the high temperature of 1,700 degrees centigrade, which is higher than that of the previous 1,700 degrees high temperature, which is larger than that of the previous melter (Sn) with the upper temperature of 1,700 degrees high temperature, which is lower than that of the previous melter (Sn) and then cut it by slowly cooling it. The plaintiff ADO's products and supply the Samsung Ploat Panel, etc., which were produced by the plaintiff her from AGC.

B. Equipment import and installation of the plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs concluded a facility sales contract with AGC as follows and imported machinery, parts, and spare parts included in each equipment package (in filing an import declaration, the Plaintiffs filed an import declaration for each individual component. In addition to the equipment imported by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs collectively referred to as the “instant equipment”).

(D) 1.2.27.12.27.27, 2000,000 AFK around December 1, 2004; DP 11.6.66 billion won around September 30, 2005; DP 12.7.5 billion 6.4 billion won on May 12, 2006; DP 7.4.6 billion won on May 22, 2006; DP 13.95 billion won on May 28, 2007; 7.4 billion won on May 12, 2006; 7.4 billion won on May 12, 2006;

(c) License agreement, etc.

(1) The Plaintiffs entered into the license agreement with AGC (hereinafter “instant license agreement”).

A person shall be appointed.

(2) The main contents of the fourth license agreement dated December 18, 2009 are as follows (However, the first to third license agreement does not include the operating know-how).

본문내 포함된 표 원고들과 AGC는 액정디스플레이용 유리기판의 플로트, 연마 관련 기술 및 사업운영 노하우를 실시허여 함에 관하여 다음과 같이 합의하여 본 계약을 체결한다. 제1조(정의) 5. "본 소판제조기술"이란, 본건특허 ① 및 본건 소판노하우를 말한다. 6. "본 연마기술"이란, 본건특허 ② 및 본건 연마노하우를 말한다. 7. "본건특허 ①"이란, 별지 1에 기재된 일본특허(일본국 특허청에게 계속되고 있는 것) 및 이와 실질적으로 동일한 발명인 전세계에서 출원된 특허출원 및 그 출원에 관하여 성립된 특허권을 말한다. 8. "본건특허 ②"란, 별지 3에 기재된 일본특허(일본국 특허청에게 계속되고 있는 것) 및 이와 실질적으로 동일한 발명인 전세계에서 출원된 특허출원 및 그 출원에 관하여 성립된 특허권을 말한다. 9. "본건 소판노하우"는 AGC가 본 계약 날짜에 있어서 보유 및 공업적으로 이용하고 있는 노하우이고, 본 소판제조에 관한 것을 말하며, 별지 2에 기재하고 있는 것을 포함한다(별지 2에 기재된 내용에 한하지 않음). 10. "본건 연마노하우"는 AGC가 본 계약 날짜에 있어서 보유 및 공업적으로 이용하고 있는 노하우이고, 본 연마에 관한 것을 말하며, 별지 4에 기재하고 있는 것을 포함한다(별지 4에 기재된 내용에 한하지 않음). 11. "사업운영 노하우"는 AGC가 본 제품을 제조하고 판매하기 위해서 보유하고 있는 사업운영일체에 관한 노하우이며, 본건 소판노하우 및 본건 연마노하우 이외의 것을 말한다. 제3조(실시허여) 1. AGC는 본 소판 제조기술, 본 연마기술 및 사업운영 노하우에 대하여 다음 각호의 목적을 위해 원고 AFK에 대해 비독점적, 양도불가, 재실시허여권이 없는 실시권을 허여한다. (1) 원고 AFK가 소판제조를 행하여 그 결과물인 소판유리를 국내에서 판매하는 것 (2) 원고 AFK가 연마를 행하여 그 결과물인 본 제품을 국내에서 판매하는 것 2. AGC는 본 연마기술 및 사업운영 노하우에 대하여 원고 ADO가 본 연마를 수행하고 그 결과물인 본 제품을 국내에서 판매하는 것에 대하여 원고 AFK에 대해 비독점적, 양도불가, 재실시허여권이 없는 실시권을 허여한다. 제7조(비밀유지) 1. 원고들은 본 계약에 관하여 AGC로부터 알게 된 본건 소판노하우, 본건 연마노하우, 사업운영 노하우 및 AGC의 경영상, 영업상 또는 기술상 비밀을 제3자에게 보여주거나 누설해서는 안되고, 본 계약에서 명시적으로 허락된 범위 외에는 사용해서는 안된다. 2. 전항에 불구하고, 원고 AFK는 본건 소판제조 및 본건 연마를 행하기 위하여 설비 혹은 공사의 발주 및 업무의 위탁을 행하는 경우에는 당해 제3자에 대해 필요최소한의 본건 소판노하우 및 본건 연마노하우를 공개할 수 있다. 3. 제1항에 불구하고, 원고 ADO은 본건 연마를 행하기 위하여 제3자에 대해 설비 혹은 공사의 발주 및 업무의 위탁을 행하는 경우에는 당해 제3자에 대해 필요최소한의 본건 연마노하우를 공개할 수 있다. 별지1 본건특허 ①(주 1) 번호 출원번호 등록번호 발명의 명칭 상태 16 (출원번호 1 생략) (등록번호 1 생략) 플로트 유리의 제조장치 등록확정 17 (출원번호 2 생략) (등록번호 2 생략) 플로트 유리의 제조장치 및 제조방법 등록확정 18 (출원번호 3 생략) (등록번호 3 생략) 플로트 유리의 제조장치 및 제조방법 등록확정 58 (출원번호 4 생략) (등록번호 4 생략) 플로트 판유리 제조장치 등록확정 59 (출원번호 5 생략) (등록번호 5 생략) 플로트 판유리 제조장치 등록확정 별지 2 본건 소판노하우 ① 원료종류/조합 플로우/조합장치/원료관리 ② 투입장치/투입관리 ③ 용해조구조/기능/로재/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ④ 세정설비구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑤ 공해대책(가스배출/배출액처리) ⑥ 연소장치/연소관리 ⑦ 메탈Bath설비/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑧ 레이어장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑨ 검사장치/구조/기능/메인터넌스 ⑩ 절단채판포장장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑪ 유틸리티장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑫ 계장장치/기능/메인터넌스 ⑬ 시험분석/기능/메인터넌스 별지 3 본건특허 ②(주2) 번호 출원번호 등록번호 발명의 명칭 상태 3 (출원번호 6 생략) (등록번호 6 생략) 판상체의 연마방법 및 장치 등록확정 4 (출원번호 7 생략) (등록번호 7 생략) 유리판의 절단방법 및 장치 등록확정 5 (출원번호 8 생략) (등록번호 8 생략) 유리판의 절단방법 및 장치 등록확정 별지 4 본건 연마노하우 ① 절·면취장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ② 연마장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ③ 검사·세정장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ④ 배수처리장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑤ 포장장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑥ 포장형태/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑦ 유틸리티장치/구조/기능/오퍼레이션/메인터넌스 ⑧ 계장장치/기능/메인터넌스 ⑨ 시험분석/기능/메인터넌스

Note 1) Attached 1 Patents 1

Note 2) Attached 3 Patents 2

(3) The annual payment status of Plaintiff AFK’s royalty is as follows.

Table (units: 274,885,013,545,97,97,839,338,569,569,2261,304,159,389,393,246,361,361, 574 and the total amount of 2013 years of 2011, 2010, 2006 for the year 2008 274,845,875,871, 8622,846, 302,307,927,942,92,92, of 209 for the year 2008

(4) The annual status of payment of royalties by Plaintiff ADO is as follows.

Table (units: 36,890,000,000 31,659,000,000,000 68,549,000,000 68,549,000,000 for the year 2010

D. Grounds for dispositions against Plaintiff ADO

(1) On April 19, 2012, the Defendant head of the Seoul Customs Office notified Plaintiff ADO prior to taxation, applying the proviso to Article 3-4 subparag. 3 and subparag. 4(b) of the “Public Notice on Determination of Dutiable Value of Imported Goods” (Notice No. 2010-88, Jun. 10, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Public Notice”), on the grounds that “the royalty paid in 2010 and 2011 was related to the instant facilities, and paid as terms and conditions of transaction” (Article 3-4 subparag. 3 and subparag. 4(b).

(2) On September 27, 2012, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service requested a review of the legality of the Plaintiff ADO’s objection, and on September 27, 2012, he was determined to re-examine the method of calculating the royalty for the use of the right so that the total amount of the royalty for the use of the right can be added to the instant facilities, as the royalty was paid for all patents and know-hows related to the entire process from the development of products and the selection of raw materials to the inspection packing of the finished products.

(3) However, on June 22, 2013, the head of the Seoul Customs Office imposed and notified the customs duties, etc. on Plaintiff ADO by stipulating that the full amount of the royalty should be added to the import price, such as the content of the notice prior to taxation.

(4) While Plaintiff ADO filed a request for review on July 17, 2013, Plaintiff ADO received a decision of dismissal from the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service on October 30, 2013. Accordingly, the disposition of imposition of customs duties, etc. on Plaintiff ADO became as shown in the separate sheet No. 1.

E. Grounds for disposition against Plaintiff AFK

(1) The head of Defendant Daegu Customs Office: (a) divided the royalty paid by Plaintiff AFK to AGC from 2005 to 2013 for each facility as follows (However, since 2008, subdivision 3) ; (b) 303,518,078,82 won (=135,640,248,255 + 167,870,627 won + 167,830,627) excluding the total amount of royalty paid to Plaintiff AFK for the use of the right for each facility (hereinafter “the royalty for use of the right”) from 2007 to 2013; and (c) excluding the total amount of royalty for use of the imported facility DP1 and DP12 for each facility (the usage fee for each facility) ; (d) 13,50,000,000 won paid for each of the following measures, and (d) 4,3,000,000.

본문내 포함된 표 권리사용료안분 (단위 : 원) 구분 2005년 2006년 2007년 2008년 2009년 2010년 2011년 2012년 2013년 합계 금액 274,885,001 3,545,997,839 19,338,569,226 191,304,159,389 393,246,361,574 399,739,706,039 357,845,871,106 222,846,301,792 103,876,870,376 1,692,019,722,342 설비 DP11연마(05.5.) 274,885,001 1,769,135,478 5,529,630,439 22,235,016,316 34,142,636,989 26,552,859,958 23,594,088,901 14,693,031,797 6,848,963,376 135,640,248,255 DP12연마(06.5.12) 1,776,862,361 6,999,438,834 27,623,323,929 42,416,569,790 32,987,529,285 29,311,745,449 18,253,657,703 8,508,702,275 167,877,830,627 DP13연마(07.2.28) 6,184,300,987 35,089,978,765 53,881,876,672 41,904,142,496 37,234,785,193 23,187,667,886 10,808,626,178 208,291,379,178 DP14연마(07.10.22) 234,490,797 27,201,789,660 41,769,289,333 32,484,136,787 28,864,446,709 17,975,105,335 8,378,858,756 156,908,117,378 DP14_E계(08.2.14) 3,149,088,215 5,718,582,127 4,447,363,290 3,951,795,965 2,460,949,605 1,147,139,266 20,874,918,469 DP14_F계(09.4.24) 4,156,569,494 4,578,683,072 4,068,482,854 2,533,615,440 1,181,011,489 16,518,362,348 DF가마(07.4.12) 390,708,169 37,194,028,582 57,112,717,975 44,416,780,190 39,467,442,006 24,578,035,591 11,456,728,250 214,616,441,763 FF가마(08.3.14) 38,810,933,921 79,491,668,677 61,820,976,128 54,932,297,651 34,208,652,831 15,945,913,247 285,210,442,455 HF가마(09.3.4) 74,556,450,517 73,617,016,316 65,413,911,357 40,735,994,663 18,988,547,726 273,311,920,579 IF가마(10.1.12) 76,930,218,516 71,007,873,023 44,219,589,939 20,612,379,812 212,770,061,290

(2) Plaintiff AFK filed a request for review, and received a decision as follows.

Results of the decision on the request for examination of the date of the Serial Disposition in the main sentence were made on February 15, 2012 after the re-examination was made on September 27, 2012, and thereafter on May 9, 2012, 2012 after the decision on re-investigation was made on May 3, 2012, 201, August 3, 2012, 2012; and on November 4, 2012, 2013, March 5, 2013, 2013; and on February 6, 2013, 2013, the dismissal is made on June 30, 2013.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 2 through 23, 26 through 37, 53, 74 through 78 (including provisional numbers), Eul's statements, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 12 through 15 (including provisional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The reasons for this part are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Facts of recognition;

The reasons for this part are as follows. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 4 through 15) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8(2) and 51).

○ Forms 4 and 5 below the second Schedule of the 11st one are as follows.

(6) According to the plaintiffs' import declaration on the instant facilities, the foreign supplier included large-scale companies, not AGC (No. 18-5) among the instant facilities as follows.

○ Section 12, the 5th of the 12st order, "," shall be read as "human resources".

○ From the last 12 to 13 pages 6 below (c. AGC’s provisional disposition litigation part) shall be deleted.

The statement of the person concerned is set forth in Part 7 under the title 13 below, and the statement of the person concerned is set forth in Part 7 under the title 13, and the statement of the person concerned is set forth in Part 14 under the second table, “(d) of the tax authorities, etc. relating to the application of the notice of this case.”

5. Determination

A. Relevant statutes

(1) Article 30(1)4 of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “The dutiable value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the following amounts to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer for the goods sold to be exported to Korea: Provided, That the addition of the amount calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree, which is paid as the price for the use of patent rights, utility model rights, design rights, trademark rights, and other rights similar thereto, shall be based on objective and quantitative data, and if there is no such data, the dutiable value shall not be determined by the method prescribed in this Article, and Articles 31 through 35 shall be determined by the method prescribed in this Article.”

(2) Article 19(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides for "other rights similar thereto" under Article 30(1)4 of the Customs Act. Article 19(2)2 provides for "the production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not legal rights but economically valuable and kept confidential by considerable effort." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the price for the use of patent rights, utility model rights, design rights, trademark rights, and similar rights, which shall be added to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer of the relevant goods under Article 30(1) of the Customs Act, shall be the amount paid directly or indirectly by the buyer according to the terms and conditions of the transaction of the relevant goods." Paragraph (3)1 (d) provides that "in the application of the provisions of paragraph (2), if the royalty is paid for a patent right, it shall be deemed that the royalty is related to the relevant goods in application of the provisions of Paragraph (2)1 of the Customs Act."

(3) In full view of the above provisions, in order to add the royalty to the customs value of imported goods, the royalty is related to the relevant goods (related) and the buyer shall pay the royalty to the relevant goods as the transaction terms (related to the transaction conditions).

B. Regarding relevance

(1) In order to recognize the relationship between the instant facility and the instant royalty, the pertinent imported facility should be designed to practice a patent that is eligible for royalty (Article 19(3)1(a) and (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act). In other words, a patent eligible for royalty should have been embodied and embodied in the relevant facility at the time of import declaration.

(2) In the case of this case, Article 3 provides that "GC grants the license for manufacture and processing of soft technology, business operation know-how to the plaintiffs." Article 1 provides that "this refers to patents and know-how listed in the separate sheet." The separate sheet includes patents and know-how which are directly related to the manufacture of equipment and know-how, ② The facility of this case consists of a series of processes, and is for the production of freeboard equipment and equipment owned by AGC in order to produce freeboard, ③ The manufacture and sales contract of this case includes all kinds of equipment and equipment for manufacturing and sales contract of this case, and the equipment and equipment of this case are not prepared for manufacture and sales contract of this case and are not prepared for manufacture and sales contract of this case. The basic equipment and equipment of this case are prepared for manufacture and sales contract of this case. The plaintiffs are not prepared for manufacture and sales contract of this case,

C. Regarding the nature of transaction terms

(1) The royalty paid directly or indirectly by the buyer according to the terms and conditions of transaction for the pertinent goods is included in the customs value of the relevant goods. Here, “the royalty shall be paid according to the terms and conditions of transaction for the relevant goods” means the case in which the buyer pays the royalty to the seller to purchase the imported goods and in which the buyer has no choice of purchase for the imported goods (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7958 delivered on April 27, 1993).

(2) The instant license agreement is intended to produce glass plates with the patent or know-how owned by AGC. The patent or know-how provided by AGC is extended to all processes to produce such glass plates. If the patent or know-how provided by the Plaintiffs is realized through the patent or know-how equipment and equipment provided, the pertinent equipment can only be designed to be suitable for the implementation of such patent or know-how. ② Of the instant equipment, the number of packing equipment, lock-out equipment, screening equipment, inspection and cleaning equipment, and draining treatment equipment included the small-how and know-how under the instant license agreement (attached Form 2, 4 of the instant license agreement), ③ The Plaintiffs are not entitled to freely purchase the equipment and equipment of AG, regardless of whether the patent or know-how provided to the subsidiaries with respect to the manufacture of equipment and equipment sold by AGC, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to freely purchase the equipment and equipment of AG 10% of the instant case.

D. As to the pro rata distribution of the royalty

The reasons for this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 20 to 3 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance) in addition to the partial completion as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The term “user fee for the right to the instant facilities” in Part 17 of the 26th page is “user fee for the right to facilities, machinery, and equipment recognized as relevant and contractual terms and conditions as seen earlier among the instant facilities.”

6. The part concerning the defendant's argument on the appellate trial

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

(1) The proviso of Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the Notice of this case, rather than limited to “facilities” but rather on the premise of “total method or manufacturing process”, is a provision regarding the royalty to be added to the customs value of the relevant imported goods including the royalty to use the right to use the relevant imported goods. In other words, the proviso of Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the Notice of this case provides a legislative method to add the royalty to the customs value of the relevant imported goods in consideration of the proportion of the royalty to the royalty to use the right to use the relevant imported goods, including the royalty to use the right to use the pertinent imported goods, to produce a specific finished product (all methods and processes other than facilities and equipment). On the other hand, if the royalty to use the right to use the imported goods under the license agreement and the royalty to use the right to use the imported goods, which are to be added to the customs value of the imported goods, is not clearly distinguishable from the royalty to use the relevant imported goods in proportion to the ratio of the “price of the relevant imported goods” among “price of all facilities, etc.”

(2) Of the royalty for the use of the right in this case, there is no price for the “business operation and know-how,” and if the price for the household business operation and know-how is included, it cannot be included in the pro rata distribution formula under the proviso of Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the Notice in this case, since it is not the price for the “total method or manufacturing process,” which produces a specific finished product. Therefore, the existence and amount of such price is not only the circumstance favorable to the Plaintiff, but most of its factual relations exist within the territory controlled by the Plaintiff, and thus, the burden of proof on the existence and amount of the “business operation and know-how

B. Determination

(1) We examine the Defendant’s first argument.

According to the Defendant’s assertion, the term “user fee for a right with a relationship” and “user fee for a right without a relationship” are mixed with the equipment and facilities designed to practice a patent for a method under the proviso of Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the instant notification. According to the formula of Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the instant notification, in order to calculate user fee for a right related to the imported equipment. According to the formula of the proviso of Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the instant notification (the price for the pertinent imported equipment/total equipment, etc.) the royalty for a right to add to the import price is calculated solely on the basis of the “price for the entire equipment, etc.” and “import equipment, etc. price for the entire equipment” (the calculation of user fee for a right related to the imported equipment) so as to remove the user fee for a right that is not related to the imported equipment. This is unreasonable in that it is calculated based on the ratio, which is not related to the imported equipment, to which the Defendant’s conclusion that the user fee for a right is included in the import price for the entire equipment and equipment would always be acceptable.

(2) We examine the defendant's second argument.

Of the royalty for the use of the right in this case, there is the price for the “business operation and know-how” as seen earlier. The price for business operation and know-how is not the price for the entire production method or manufacturing process, and it is so argued by the Defendant that it may not be included in the pro rata distribution formula under the proviso of Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the Notice. However, the public notice in this case (public notice on the determination of the dutiable value of imported goods) provides for the method of calculating the royalty for the use of the right to be added to the dutiable value of imported goods pursuant to Article 30(1)4 of the Customs Act and Article 19(2), (3), and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act. Thus, Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides for the method of calculating the royalty for use of the right to be added to the dutiable value of imported goods. Thus, it is not reasonable for the Defendant to prove the fact that the “right to be paid” under the proviso of Article 3-4 subparag. 3 of the same.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the appeal by the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges fixed-type (Presiding Judge) and Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu

Note 1) The entire list is up to 315.

Note 2) The entire list is up to 170.

3) The import facility DP1 was paid only in 2005, and the royalty was paid in installments for each facility in 2006 and 2007.

4) Among the instant facilities, the instant patent or know-how contains facilities irrelevant to the instant patent or know-how.

(5) The royalty to be added is the “price of the pertinent import facilities, etc. / total equipment”, and “price of the pertinent import facilities, etc. / total equipment” = “price of the relevant import facilities, etc. / total equipment” = “user fee to be added” = “total amount of royalty to be paid.”