1. The defendant's refusal disposition against the plaintiff on July 22, 2008 against the reduction of customs duties and value-added taxes as stated in the separate sheet 1 "value-added tax" and the separate sheet 2 "value-added tax" as stated in the separate sheet 2 "value-added tax" as stated on April 7, 2009 shall be revoked in all the refusal disposition against the plaintiff on each claim for reduction of value-added tax.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that has invested 9.9% of the GATT with its principal office in Germany, and is established for the purpose of selling in the Republic of Korea golf products and clothing, etc. with the trademark “Tdaylormade” and “ad○○○” attached with the trademark “Ad○○”. The Plaintiff is a company that has invested 10% of the goods from manufacturers of the distribution companies scattered in Germany, and that is established for the intermediate role of a bridge in purchasing goods from the manufacturers of the distribution companies scattered in each country.

B. On July 22, 2002, the Plaintiff and A○○ concluded a contract for purchase agency service with the content that ○○ shall be appointed as the Plaintiff’s buying agent, and then imported each product subject to customs duties and value-added tax (hereinafter “instant product”) on each corresponding date listed in the “import declaration date” listed in the attached Table, and paid an amount equivalent to 8.25% of the price of the goods as the purchase commission (hereinafter “instant commission”) to a ○○○. The Plaintiff and A○○ declared and paid customs duties and value-added taxes by including the instant commission in the dutiable value and calculating the amount of tax when filing an import declaration to the Defendant.

(c)

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant fee should be deducted from the dutiable value, and on May 30, 2008, between June 1, 2006 and October 31, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the correction of the amount of KRW 58,621,84 out of the amount of KRW 63,902,835 of the customs duties declared and paid as shown in the attached Table 1, and the amount of KRW 58,621,84 of the value-added tax, 79,740,962 of the amount of KRW 874,47,643 of the customs duties declared and paid as shown in the attached Table 1, and on February 9, 2009 between the imported goods and the amount from June 1, 2008 to October 13, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the reduction of the customs duties amounting to KRW 394,451,480,080, KRW 3616,6467

D. The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction of reduction on or before May 30, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s request for correction of reduction on or before February 9, 2009 (hereinafter “instant rejection disposition”) on July 22, 2008, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s request for correction of reduction on or after May 30, 2008, cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s purchasing agent in relation to the importation of the instant products, including the Plaintiff’s golf, shoes, and clothes (hereinafter “instant rejection disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings. 2. The legitimacy of each rejection disposition of this case is legitimate. According to various factors revealed in the transactional relationship between the plaintiff's alleged plaintiff, aa0, and foreign manufacturers, the commission of this case constitutes a purchase commission that is not included in the dutiable value pursuant to the proviso of Article 30 (1) 1 of the Customs Act, and thus, the commission of this case's refusal disposition of this case should be revoked illegally.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 30 (Principle of Determination of Dutiable Value) (1) The dutiable value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the amount falling under each of the following subparagraphs to the price actually paid or payable by a buyer for the goods sold to be exported to Korea: Provided, That the addition of the amount falling under each of the following subparagraphs shall be based on objective and numerical data, and if such data are unavailable, the dutiable value shall be determined by the methods of Articles 31 through 135 instead of using the methods of this Article:

1. Commission and brokerage borne by a buyer: Provided, That any purchase commission shall be excluded;

2. through 6. (Omission)

(2) The term “the price paid or to be paid actually by a buyer” in the main sentence of paragraph (1) means a total amount paid or to be paid by the buyer for the price of the relevant imported goods; hereinafter the same shall apply), the competent administrative agency (Article 203-8), 3-1 (Fee, etc. published by the Korea Customs Service on March 9, 2003), and Article 30 (1) 1 of the Act on the Determination of the Dutiable Value of the imported goods shall be as follows (Article 30 (1) 1 of the Act (amended by March 19, 2003):

3. The term "purchase fees" means expenses that a buyer pays to his/her agent for services only for a buyer abroad (such as physical coloring the supplier, informing the seller of the requirements of the buyer, collecting samples, inspecting the goods, and inspecting the goods at the time of purchase);

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1)Ad○○-Sa○ AG is an enterprise that manufactures and sells new, clothing, and sports supplies, and it was originally manufactured and sold through a selling company established by each country. However, since the 1980s, the new launch and textile manufacturers in Asian region continued to temporarily stuff the market. Since the early 1990s, it was required to reduce the cost and to reduce the amount of direct production in order to reduce the efficiency of production, purchase, and logistics, and to take charge of only the manufacture of the product by reding the Chinese or other manufacturers in the East Asia, which are less costed to reduce the cost and to increase the efficiency of production, purchase, and distribution. Accordingly, GATT 00-Sa○ AG established a ○○○ and had them take charge of the purchase of the “ad○○○” trademark product from the manufacturers.

(2) On July 22, 2002, the Plaintiff and A○○ entered into a purchase agency service contract. The main contents of the contract are as follows (TMK refers to the Plaintiff at the following time).

1.1As from November 23, 1999, TMK has been appointed as a purchasing agent (buing agent) in connection with the purchase of a trademark of ○○○-Sa○ by virtue of the good terms and conditions of the (dudu) agreement entered into force.

2.2 ○○ shall, at the request of TMK, purchase and deliver to TMK samples for the purpose of TMK. TMK agrees to pay for the samples in question the sum of the amounts indicated in the invoice and the purchase commission for A○ in accordance with Section 5 of this Agreement to the amount indicated in the invoice. However, with respect to the shipment of samples, TMK shall not accept or pay for the additional, supplementary, adjusted, modified, or modified invoice without the prior consent of TMK.

2.3 ○○ does not have ownership (title) over a product purchased for TPP in accordance with the order of TPP. However, in order to enable the product to be delivered in succession to TPP, ○○ is entitled to have a manufacturer issue a invoice to ○○. A ○○ clearly indicates that the product is an agent of TPP in all transactions conducted with manufacturers on behalf of TPP, acting as a purchasing agent of TPP and, as far as possible, in all transactions conducted with TPP. However, even if the status as a purchasing agent was not explicitly expressed, ○○ does not impair a status as a purchasing agent. A ○○○ is clearly stated that no order is issued for TPP without prior consent of TPP, and no inventory may be held for the purpose of sale to TPP. A ○○ must indicate the actual price of the manufacturer at the time of preparation of a invoice to TPP by TPP separately from the actual purchase fees of ○○ under this Agreement.

2.6Where TMK provides modified samples received from its own sampling, design, specifications, or manufacturers, aOO must search for a manufacturer that can meet the requirements and criteria of TMK from among the manufacturers referred to above and provide the manufacturer's cost (as outline) .. and the other specifications, information, etc. required by TMK should also be provided to TMK.

2.7 ○○ shall at all times make every effort and judgement to negotiate on prices, terms and conditions of transactions and other matters for products with the approval of TMK. Even if there is an intention to pay a higher price by TMK at the time of the purchase of the products, a ○○ shall make every effort to purchase them at a minimum price consistent with the criteria, requirements, or the date of shipment set forth by TMK.

2.9 Products purchased for TPP must be examined and approved by ○ prior to their shipment to TPP, and credit and other means of payment must also be approved by ○○ as a condition precedent for payment. A ○○’s approval authority shall be exercised under packaging prior to (i) the products are consistent with and defective with the matters specified in the relevant import contract or purchase order (including related modifications), (ii) meet the requirements of the relevant Korean laws and regulations, (iii) meet the requirements of the relevant Korean laws and regulations, and (iv) is equipped with documents necessary for customs clearance in Korea, and (iv) is packed and indicated in accordance with the order of the relevant import contract or purchase order, and (iv) shall be requested for payment, and (iv) shall be carried out in a stable way to the warehouse or storage place of TPP.

2.11AOO shall place an order for purchase to a manufacturer selected with the approval of TMK and shall take all necessary steps to ensure the international carriage of the products. AOO shall inform TMK of the name of the carrier, the name of the vessel or the flights, the port of importation and the date of arrival, and shall deliver the relevant documents to TMK or its Korean representative.

3. Granting of authority: A○ does not have the authority to do any of the following acts without the written consent of TMK:

3.1The act of setting a discretion with a manufacturer in relation to the manufacture of goods for TPP 3.2, or the act of changing the price already agreed upon between the manufacturer and TPP 3.3, or the act of extending the quantity of goods or the date of shipment 3.4, delivery or shipment ; 3.5, the act of entering into other binding arrangements on behalf of TPP ; 5.1 TPP will pay a purchase commission to ○○ in addition to the compensation for the costs set out in Article 6 below as the price for the service performed by the purchasing agent.

5.2The purchase commission means the overall compensation for services performed on behalf of TMK, and a0 cannot require any other additional compensation.

8.1The Parties agree that in all cases and on each purchase order ordered through a AOO, TMK has the final decision making right to select a buyer, pricing, transport and other related work.

9.1The Parties agree that TMK shall directly enter into an import contract with a manufacturer and shall have absolute rights to make a purchase order even without the aid of ○○. In all the case a ○○ agrees that no consideration, such as any compensation, will be paid for the particular contract or order.

10.1 TMK is wholly in danger of damage, loss, and defective goods (as soon as possible). If a specific manufacturer is unable to carry out an order ordered by TMK, a ○○ shall notify this fact to TMK, and a ○○ agrees that it will not enter into a purchase contract with another manufacturer without explicit approval and authorization of TMK.

(3) The process in which the Plaintiff imported and purchased the instant products under the said contract is as follows.

(A) Australia: (a) prepared a basic design for the product; (b) sought opinions from the selling companies; (c) sought from the selling companies the most recent trend, prices; (d) the market requirements, including Lone Star; and (e) revised the proposal after being provided with analyzed data from competitors; and (c) hearing the opinions of the selling companies; and (d) subsequently, the selling companies shall attend the marketing meeting (GM (GM) or RM (GM) which is the pre-review stage for the product; (c) confirm the samples produced by the manufacturer; and (d) receive the reference price information collected by the manufacturer from the manufacturer, and then deliver the purchase price collected by the manufacturer to the manufacturer through (a)0. Since then, (a) the selling company shall obtain expected demand from the manufacturer to manufacture the product so that it may be known to the manufacturer; and (d) then, (e) notify the manufacturer and the final seller of whether it would be possible to manufacture the product; and (e) then, (e) shall determine the price of the sample produced by the manufacturer and the last distributor.

(B) The main text of the product is made by the web-be system (web-backedb-backed system, electronic transaction system linked between ○ and the manufacturer) of ○○. If the Plaintiff entered the product number, quantity, etc. in the above system or made orders to a ○○ through e-mail (e-mail), a ○○ orders the manufacturer to send a purchase contract (P/O) stating the Plaintiff’s customer number, order number, F.O.B. transport terms, etc.

(C) When the manufacture of a product is completed in accordance with the order, a○○ shall inspect the product prior to the delivery of the product and prepare a certificate of examination. Upon the shipment is completed to the shipping company designated by the Plaintiff, the relevant shipping documents shall be confirmed and notified to the Plaintiff.

(D) The carriage of the product is directly conducted from the manufacturer to the Plaintiff under the terms of F.O.B. The bill of lading (B/L) includes the manufacturer, the consignee, the consignee, and the freight, respectively. The Plaintiff subscribed to the insurance in preparation for an accident in the course of carriage of the imported product, and paid the freight.

(e) A manufacturer shall issue a invoice indicating “Plaintiff’s agent A○○,” and a “○○” shall open a letter of credit (L/C) with the manufacturer’s beneficiary in his/her own name and pay the manufacturer the price of the goods first. A○ shall issue to the Plaintiff the manufacturer’s supply price and the instant commission based on the invoice received from the manufacturer, and the Plaintiff shall pay the said amount to a ○○ within 50-80 days thereafter.

(4) The certificate of import declaration prepared by the Plaintiff while making customs clearance of imported goods is written by a○○. The Plaintiff’s financial statements on the Plaintiff’s audit report also indicate “ad○○” trademark products as “a○○”.

(5)In the event of a defect in a product, upon the plaintiff's request to a ○○ for the disposal of the defect, the ○○ shall contact with the manufacturer and consult with the manufacturer for the disposal of the defect and shall dispose of the defect in such a way as to inform the plaintiff

(6) The plaintiff also imports and sells the trademark products "ad○" or "a daylormade" without the purchase agency of a AOO.

[Based on recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings (1). The issue of this case is whether the fee of this case constitutes a purchase commission paid as the price for a ○○'s purchase agency for the product of this case. This is ultimately whether a ○○ purchases the product of this case from the manufacturer as the plaintiff's purchase agent or whether the products of this case were purchased from the manufacturer as the plaintiff's purchase agent or whether they were sold again from the plaintiff's independent position, and thus, it is examined in this case's below.

(2) If ○○○ intends to sell the instant product to the Plaintiff, a “○○” should acquire ownership of the instant product. The acquisition of ownership of the instant product by ○○○ is a case where ○○ purchases the instant product from a manufacturer, holding the ownership of raw materials, and a case where a ○○ purchases the instant product from a manufacturer. However, if a ○○○○ entrusts the instant product to a manufacturer, a “○○” shall pay to the manufacturer a fee for discretionary processing and raw materials, and the Plaintiff shall be paid the sum of the price of the instant processed goods and raw materials. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff shall pay a fee equivalent to 8.25% of the price of the goods paid by ○○ to the manufacturer, and there is no additional amount paid. Since the nominal amount of the price of goods paid by ○○○ to the manufacturer is not a simple processing fee, but a sales price of the instant product is for finished products, the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have purchased the instant product from a seller of the instant product, and thus, the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have sold the instant product from a seller.

(3) Whether ○○○○○ purchases the instant product from the manufacturer, or not, of the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant product from the manufacturer to a A○○○○○○○○○. As such, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s sales contract was transferred to the manufacturer and the risks therefrom (such as the price of the instant product, losses, destruction, damage, etc.) was borne by a○○○○○. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff orders the instant product to a○○○, stating the Plaintiff’s order number, customer number, and F.O.B. transport terms, and the manufacturer loaded the product under a bill of lading, ② the manufacturer, the consignee, the consignee, the Plaintiff’s agent, and the Plaintiff’s agent, who indicated the Plaintiff’s purchase order of the instant product, were liable for the Plaintiff’s sales contract’s purchase and sale of the instant product at the lower price for the instant product, and the Plaintiff’s agent and the manufacturer’s agent’s duty to purchase and sell the instant product, and the Plaintiff’s agent and the manufacturer’s agent’s duty to use of the instant product.

(4) On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff opened a L/C and paid the price for the goods to the manufacturer, it can be deemed that a ○○ has paid the price for the goods on behalf of the Plaintiff to the first manufacturer. ② Even if the right to select the goods is restricted to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s substantial selection and control of foreign manufacturers, the Plaintiff’s opinion can be reflected in the process of selecting the manufacturer, and it is difficult to see a ○○ as the Plaintiff’s purchasing agent, because the Plaintiff purchased the goods from a limited manufacturer selected by a ○○○○, and the Plaintiff purchased the goods from a limited manufacturer selected by a ○○, and it is difficult to view a ○○○ as the Plaintiff’s purchasing agent. Also, there is a case where the Plaintiff purchased a trademark product “aSJS not through a SSS,” and “Tymade” and ③ the commission that the Plaintiff paid to the ○○○ was a standardized purchase agent for the Plaintiff’s products.

(5) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the rejection disposition of this case is illegal is accepted on the ground of the reasons.