1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an import declaration with respect to one printing machine (hereinafter “instant machine”) purchased from Prring and Gachry Ltd, a U.K., on the basis of an origin declaration issued by an exporter, on January 17, 2012, applying the conventional tariff rate (0%) under the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea, the European Union, and its Member States (hereinafter “instant Agreement”).

B. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant conducted a written investigation with respect to whether the Plaintiff applied for preferential tariff treatment on the basis of an uneffective certificate of origin. However, the data submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot verify whether the Plaintiff satisfies the origin criteria under Article 2 of the Protocol on the Definition of Origin Products and Methods of Administrative Cooperation (hereinafter “instant Protocol”). As such, on February 25, 2014, Article 27 of the instant Protocol and Article 13 of the former Act on the Special Cases of the Customs Act for the Implementation of Free Trade Agreements (wholly amended by Act No. 13625, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter “former Free Trade Agreement”) met the English customs authority’s request for verification of origin in accordance with Article 10 months from the date on which the request for verification of origin was made, Article 25 of the former Act on the Definition of Origin Products and Methods of Administrative Cooperation (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 2514, Feb. 14, 2014).

C. On November 3, 2014, the British customs authority respondeded to the Defendant on the reply deadline that “the instant machine as a result of origin verification does not meet the origin standards.”

(hereinafter “instant reply”) D.

In accordance with the above reply, the defendant is entitled to Article 16 (1) 2 of the former Customs Act.