1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition or dismissal of the following two paragraphs. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details to be added or amended among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

The term " May 26, 2014" in paragraph (1) shall be amended to " May 23, 2014".

B. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added to the phrase “3. The instant disposition that did not regard the reported price of the instant goods as the dutiable value of the instant goods” under the item “(B) of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.”

The Plaintiff asserts that the goods of this case fall short of the standard for the purchase of state-run trade goods, such as low protein content, and it is not reasonable to compare the price of the goods subject to state-run trade with the price of the goods subject to state-run trade. While the purchase price of state-run trade in the Chinese grain includes the mas and freight accumulated in the course of the distribution process several times, the Plaintiff’s transaction partner argued that the purchase price of the goods of this case was minimized with the farmer and the railway freight, etc. directly traded with the farmer and the railroad freight, but the Plaintiff’s testimony of Gap evidence 1, 23 through 35 (including the virtual number) is difficult to view that the significant difference between the goods of this case and the goods subject to state-run trade is recognized, and it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s transaction partner’s financial data and the tax data of the Plaintiff’s transaction partner cannot be refunded if the exporter of China reports the export price at low price, but less income tax can be paid.

In addition, the single sacrific content of the instant product is low, and the Plaintiff measured the single saccic content.