1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders revocation below, shall be revoked.

Defendant.

1. The reasons why the court uses this part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, such as the background of the disposition, are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows.

【APA” portion of the first instance judgment Nos. 2, 12, 15, and 3 of the first instance judgment, “APA” part of the second instance judgment, each of which is “APA”.

Attached Form 3 of the first instance judgment with respect to 17 cases, "for non-party 16 cases"

1. The list is as shown in the list. In the case of No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance, the part regarding “No. 107 cases” in the 7th page of the judgment of the first instance is as follows:

2. It appears to be "as shown in the list".

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition is unlawful on the premise that the instant goods meeting the requirements for deeming direct transport under Annex II to this Agreement meet all the requirements for deeming direct transport, and there is no ground to limit the documentary evidence to the transit bill of lading for verifying the requirements for deeming direct transport. Therefore, the instant disposition is in violation of the principle of non-taxation or the protection of trust, even if the instant goods are assumed to submit a transit bill of lading with documentary evidence to confirm the requirements for deeming direct transport. (ii) contrary to the principle of non-taxation or the principle of protection of trust, even if it is assumed that the bill of lading must be submitted by documentary evidence to confirm the requirements for direct transport, the instant disposition is already in violation of such non-taxation practice, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

In addition, the Defendant expressed not only prior to the enactment of the rules on the criteria for verifying the origin of the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement, but also the public opinion that constantly recognizes the hearing as the documentary evidence of the requirements for direct transport. Therefore, the instant disposition is the principle of trust protection.