Foreign motion picture pre-announcements and goods subject to taxation

Objects of taxation pursuant to this Act shall also be subject to the advance notice of foreign movies.

Goods Tax Act (Law No. 508) No. 15

French Trade Corporation

Head of Seoul Customs Office

Seoul High Court Decision 61Na151 delivered on May 1, 1962

We reverse the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff through all instances.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below, on April 3, 1951, cleared foreign motion pictures through customs without imposing customs duties on the head of the customs office of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under the direction of the head of the customs office of the Ministry of Finance and Economy. On the other hand, it is unlawful to cancel the binding disposition and impose new taxes. (2) The pre-announcement aims at inducing the audience of the motion picture as an advertising product containing a part of the motion picture, so it cannot be viewed as a consumption product that can impose the goods tax like this motion picture, and it cannot be viewed as being a consumption product that can impose the goods tax as above, and it can be seen that the tax rate of the foreign motion picture pen, which was enforced from 1957 to 1960, is higher, and it can be seen that it is not expected that it would be exempt from customs duties on the goods for advertising purposes under Article 35 of the Customs Act (3) of the Customs Act, and it is inconsistent with Article 135 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act.

(1) However, according to the records, it is clear that the defendant, in fact, cleared the film without collecting the goods tax, and it is clear that the pre-announcement is not an independent product value. (2) The pre-announcement is merely a single body, and there is no logic that the pre-announcement is not included in the "Empicing Foreign Movies". (3) There is no reason in the tax law system that the goods exempted from customs duties under the Customs Act are not exempted from the time they reach the age of the goods, and (4) even if the goods are exempted from the customs duties due to the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act after the occurrence of the duty to pay the goods tax, it cannot affect the fact before the amendment. Accordingly, the above reasons in the original judgment is reversed and it is clear that the pre-announcement is not an independent product value, and there is no reason that Article 97 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 40 of the Administrative Litigation Act are already involved in the decision.

Justices Cho Jin-man (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Decision 2011Hun-Ma148 delivered on August 1, 201