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 of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance to the following Paragraph 2, and thus, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed that the nicotine solution imported by the Plaintiff is an electronic tobacco, since Articles 48(2)(e) and 52(1)(e) (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10416, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “Local Tax Act”) are unconstitutional for the following reasons, the disposition of this case, which is made based on the relevant legal provision, is also unlawful.

1) Article 47 subparag. 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that the term “tobacco” refers to tobacco under Article 2 of the Tobacco Business Act. Thus, in order to impose tobacco consumption tax pursuant to the Local Tax Act, the tobacco constitutes tobacco under Article 2 of the Tobacco Business Act. However, since the Tobacco Business Act was amended on January 21, 2014, which included electronic tobacco in the concept of tobacco, prior to the amendment of the aforementioned Act, the legal provision of this case, which provides for the imposition of tobacco consumption tax on electronic tobacco that does not constitute tobacco under the Tobacco Business Act, violates the principle of no taxation under Article 59 of the Constitution. (2) The legal provision of this case, even though the applicant does not need to bear tobacco consumption tax, thereby infringing on the freedom of business, which is the freedom of choice under Article 15 of the Constitution.

B. As seen earlier, the legal provision of this case clearly stipulates that “electronic tobacco” is subject to tobacco consumption tax, and that the concept of tobacco under the former Tobacco Business Act includes electronic tobacco.