1. As to the plaintiff:

A. The phrase “the completion of a request for rectification” as stated in the separate sheet 1 through 5, dated January 21, 2010 by the head of Busan Customs Office, and the phrase “the completion of a request for rectification” as stated in the separate sheet 6, dated February 17, 2010, and the phrase “the completion of a request for rectification” as stated in the separate sheet 6, dated February 17, 2010, also the phrase “the completion of a request for rectification” as stated in the separate sheet 7, dated December 14, 2009, the phrase “the completion of a request for rectification” as stated in the separate sheet 7, the phrase “the completion of a request for rectification” as stated in the separate sheet 8, dated December 29, 2009, and the phrase “the completion of a request for rectification” as stated in the separate sheet 9, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established by the Company that has its principal office in Germany for the purpose of selling sports clothing, etc. affixed with the trademark “ad○○○○”. The Plaintiff is a company established by the Company that has invested 51% of the 51% by the Company that has its principal office in Germany for the purpose of selling sports clothing, etc. attached with the trademark “ad○○○○”. The Company is a company established by the Company that has invested 100% in Hong Kong by the Company that has been scattered in each country for the purchase of goods from manufacturers in each country.

B. On May 14, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with a purchasing agent service with the content that the Plaintiff appoints a A○ as a buying agent, and the Plaintiff paid an amount equivalent to 8.25% (5% up to the day before August 9, 2001) of the manufacturer’s price for each of the imported goods subject to the imposition of customs duties, etc. as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant goods”). Since 2004, the Plaintiff reported and paid customs duties and value-added taxes by calculating the amount of customs duties and value-added taxes by calculating the manufacturer’s price for each imported goods subject to the imposition of customs duties, etc. as stated in the separate sheet.

C. The "date of filing a request for correction" in the attached list stating that the instant fees should be excluded from the dutiable value as they constitute purchase commission under the proviso of Article 30 (1) 1 of the Customs Act means the date of filing a request for correction of the customs duties and value-added taxes as stated in the attached list, and the defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant's claim for correction of the customs duties and value-added taxes as stated in the attached sheet 1 through 6, and the defendant defendant defendant's head issued a request for correction of the customs duties and value-added taxes as stated in the attached list 7, 209, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200

(d)

The National Tax Tribunal dismissed each appeal filed by the Plaintiff to the National Tax Tribunal on the grounds that the fees of this case are not the purchase fees, and the judgment of the Defendants was justified.

[Grounds] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings. 2. The plaintiff's assertion 1) the plaintiff has the right to decide on important matters concerning the import and purchase of the product of this case; the service offered to the plaintiff by Gap ○○ is merely a physical manufacturer and notify the plaintiff's requirements to the manufacturer; the inspection of the sample collection and collection goods and the transportation of the product of this case; after the shipment to the plaintiff in the process of importing the product of this case, the risk, cost, and ownership of the product of this case are directly transferred to the plaintiff; and a corporation ○○ does not bear or gain any profit from the sale of the product of this case; the plaintiff's purchase of the product of this case is not included in the plaintiff's dutiable value under the proviso to Article 10 (1) of the Customs Act.

2) In light of the terms of a contract for the purchase agency service between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is unable to purchase the trademark “ad○○” product without going through a “○○○,” and thus, A○○ is in a position to control the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff performs its role as an independent seller or an exporter rather than the Plaintiff’s purchase agent. If a ○○○○ purchases the instant product as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff does not have fulfilled its duty despite having to report the payment to the Governor of the Bank of Korea pursuant to Article 16 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act with respect to the instant fee to a third party. In addition, the Plaintiff did not submit specific materials to prove that a○○○ is the purchase agent. In light of these circumstances, each of the instant rejection dispositions is legitimate since the instant fee is not a purchase agent.

(b) Related statutes;

The dutiable value of imported goods under Article 30 (Principle of Determining Dutiable Value) of the Customs Act shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the amount falling under each of the following subparagraphs to the price actually paid or payable by a buyer for goods sold to be exported to Korea: Provided, That the addition of the amount falling under each of the following subparagraphs shall be based on objective and numerical data, and if no such data are available, the dutiable value shall be determined using the methods provided for in this Article and Articles 31 through 35:

1. Commission and brokerage borne by a buyer: Provided, That any purchase commission shall be excluded;

2. through 6. (hereinafter referred to as "information").

The term "the price paid or to be paid actually by a buyer" in the main sentence of paragraph (1) means a total amount paid or to be paid by the buyer for the price of the relevant imported goods, and such total amount shall include the amount offsetting the debt of a seller by the price of the relevant imported goods, the amount repaying the debt of a seller by a buyer and other indirect payments. (hereinafter referred to as the "shorter"). (The fees and brokerage fees under Article 30 (1) 1 of the Public Notice of the Customs Service (No. 2003-8), Article 3-1 (Fees, etc. announced by the Korea Customs Service of March 9, 2003) and Article 30 (1) 1 of the Act shall be as follows (amended by No. 690, Mar. 19, 2003):

3. The term "purchase fees" means expenses that a buyer pays to his/her agent for services only for a buyer abroad (such as physical coloring the supplier, informing the seller of the requirements of the buyer, collecting samples, inspecting the goods, and inspecting the goods at the time of purchase);

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Australia was a company that manufactures and sells new shoes, clothing, and sports supplies, etc. with the trademark “ad○” attached, and sells them through a distribution company established in each country after the early 1980s. However, since the new launch and textile manufacturers in Asian region, the production market continued to be in a cafeteria. Since the early 1990s, the production market was made by the new launch and fiber manufacturers in the Asian region, and there was little cost to reduce the amount of direct production in order to reduce cost and production, purchase, and increase logistics efficiency, and made the manufacturing company in the south Asia available only the manufacture of goods in physical colored by China or the manufacturing company in the East Asia. Accordingly, Australia established a “ad○” trademark from the manufacturing company to take charge of the purchase of goods.

2) On May 14, 1998, the Plaintiff and AO entered into a purchase agency service contract. Around July 1, 1999 and around August 1, 2001, the additional contract was made. The main contents of the contract are as follows (a. ○○ Asia/Pacifies.).

1. Appointment;

1.1 The Plaintiff shall appoint a person A○ as a purchasing agent related to the purchase of a trademark product by a specified person.

2. Services:

2.2 ○○, at the Plaintiff’s request, purchases and delivers samples on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff agrees to pay a purchase commission for A○○ in the purchase price of the samples at issue (hereinafter omitted) to the Plaintiff. 2.3 A○ does not have any ownership for the products purchased at the Plaintiff’s order.

However, in order to enable the delivery of products in succession, a manufacturer may be required to issue a invoice to a ○○. A○ is acting as a purchasing agent for the Plaintiff in all transactions with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff and, if possible in practice, clearly expressing that the Plaintiff is an agent for the Plaintiff. If a purchasing agent is not explicitly indicated, the status as a purchasing agent is not lost even if the status as a purchasing agent is not indicated. A○○ orders the Plaintiff’s account only with the Plaintiff’s prior consent, and does not keep a stock for the purpose of selling the Plaintiff. A○○ indicates that the supply price of the manufacturer and a purchasing commission for a ○○○ upon preparing a invoice against the Plaintiff is separate

2.6 If the Plaintiff provides samples, designs or raw materials, a○ shall, among manufacturers, color manufacturers who can meet the Plaintiff’s needs and standards, provide the Plaintiff with relevant information, such as terms and conditions on the manufacturer’s cost and delivery date.

2.7 ○ is obligated to make best efforts and make judgments when negotiating on prices, terms and conditions of transactions and other matters for products with the approval of the Plaintiff. Even if the Plaintiff wishes to pay a higher price in purchasing the products, a ○○ should make efforts to purchase the products at the lowest possible price in compliance with the standards set by the Plaintiff, requirements, and the date of shipment.

2.9The products purchased on behalf of the plaintiff must be checked by AOO prior to shipment and approved in advance by AOOO on the following terms and conditions: (i) imported products must conform to the terms of the purchase order of the plaintiff and have no defects; (ii) imported products must have documents necessary for customs clearance in Korea; (iii) imported products must be packed, marked, and requested for payment as specified in the import agreement; (iv) imported products can be transported safely at the warehouse or storage of the plaintiff.

2.11AO shall place a purchase order for a manufacturer selected with the approval of the plaintiff and take all necessary measures for the international carriage of the product. AOO shall inform the plaintiff of the name of the carrier which transports the product, the name of the vessel or the flight, the port of importation and the date of arrival, and shall deliver all relevant documents to the plaintiff or to the Korean representative designated by the plaintiff.

3. Granting of authority;

A○ does not have the authority to conduct the following acts without the written approval from the Plaintiff:

3.1The act of giving discretion to the manufacturer 3.2 of the act of determining or establishing the price with the manufacturer of the goods, or the act of changing the specifications or particulars of the goods 3.3 to the price already agreed upon between the plaintiff and the manufacturer 3.4 or the act of extending delivery or shipment to another binding undertaking/contract on behalf of the plaintiff 3.5 on behalf of the plaintiff 3.5; 5.1 purchase commission 8.25% of the price of the goods in return for the service performed as the purchase agent by the plaintiff 5.1 purchase commission, a ○○ shall pay 8.25% of the price of the goods to a ○○ as the purchase commission (the price of the goods with 5%).

8. Final authority.

8.1The Parties agree that in each purchase order ordered by A○○, the Plaintiff has the right to make a final decision on the buyer’s selection, price determination, transport and other related services.

9. The reserved rights.

9.1 Both parties agree that the Plaintiff shall have, without the aid of a AOO, an absolute management in which the Plaintiff may directly place an order for purchase and that in all cases aOO agrees not to receive any compensation for the Plaintiff’s purchase orders.

11.1 If a manufacturer’s replacement 11.1 specific manufacturer is unable to perform the sector ordered by the Plaintiff, a ○ shall notify the Plaintiff of the fact, and a ○○ may not enter into a purchase contract with another manufacturer without the Plaintiff’s explicit approval and authorization.

3) The Plaintiff’s purchase process for the trademark “ad○○” product, including the instant product, is as follows.

A) Australia: (a) prepared a basic design for products; (b) sought opinions from the selling companies; (c) received data from the selling companies on the latest trends, prices, market requirements, including Lone Star; and (d) revised the proposal through the process of seeking opinions from the selling companies; and (c) then, sought opinions from the selling companies. Subsequent to that, the selling companies shall attend the marketing meeting (GM (GM) or RM (GM) prior examination for the products; (d) confirm the samples produced by the manufacturer; and (e) receive the information on the reference price collected by a manufacturer from a manufacturer, and then deliver the purchase price collected by a “OOO” to the manufacturer via a “OO”. Since then, (a) the selling companies shall receive the expected demand for the products that they want to obtain from the manufacturers, inform the manufacturers of whether it is possible to manufacture them; and (e) after notifying the manufacturer and the final seller of whether they would consent to the manufacture.

(b)The text of the product is made by the web-be system (web-backedb-backed system, electronic transaction system connected between ○ and manufacturers) of a ○○○. If the Plaintiff orders the purchase to a ○○ by entering the product number, quantity, etc. or by e-mail (e-mail). A○○ orders the products by sending the purchase contract (P/O) with the Plaintiff’s customer number, order number, F.O.B. transport terms, etc. from the web-be system. On the other hand, the Plaintiff can verify its order and expected completion date, expected shipment date, etc. through the purchase order confirmation system (SIM). In addition, the case where the confirmation results show that the expected shipment date is much different from the date the initial purchase order was requested.

C) When the manufacture of a product is completed in accordance with the order, a○○ shall inspect the product prior to the delivery of the product and prepare a certificate of examination, and upon completion of shipment to the shipping company designated by the Plaintiff, the relevant shipping documents shall be confirmed and notified to the Plaintiff.

D) The carriage of products directly takes place on the part of the Plaintiff from the manufacturer under the terms of F.O.B. In light of the bill of lading (B/L), the consignor, the consignee, and the freight are written on the part of the manufacturer, the Plaintiff, and the consignee. On the other hand, the Plaintiff subscribed to the Korea ○○ Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. in order to prepare for the loss or damage of the imported products, and paid the premium.

e)A producer shall issue a invoice indicating “the importer’s agent A○○” and send it to a A○○, and AOO shall establish a letter of credit (L/C) with the manufacturer’s beneficiary in his/her name and pay the manufacturer the price of the goods first. AOO shall issue a invoice, on the basis of the invoice received from the manufacturer, stating the manufacturer’s supply price and the instant fee, and send it to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall pay the above amount within 50 to80 days thereafter.

(iv)The certificate of import declaration prepared by the Plaintiff while clearing the instant goods through customs is written in the Supplier column as “a○○”, and also in the financial statements of the Plaintiff’s audit report, the purchasing place of the instant trademark products is “a○○”.

(v)In the event of a defect in the product, if the plaintiff requests a ○○ for the disposal of the defect, a○○ shall contact with the manufacturer and consult about the method of the manufacturer to dispose of the defect, and then handle the defect in such a way as to inform the plaintiff of the manufacturer of the result of the defect disposal

6) The Plaintiff is also a number of cases where a trademark product “ad○” was purchased through Washington ○○ without actually acting as a purchase agent of a A○○.

[Reasons for recognition] According to Article 30(1) of the Customs Act, the customs value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the commission and relay fee to the price actually paid or to be paid by the buyer to the goods sold for export to Korea, and the purchase commission paid to the purchasing agent shall not be added to the price actually paid or to be paid by the buyer. Thus, the issue of this case is whether the fees paid by the Plaintiff to the ○○○○○○ for the purchase agent for the instant goods is whether the purchase commission paid by the Plaintiff to the ○○○○○○○○○○ for the instant goods, and it is ultimately whether a ○○○○○○ purchases the instant goods from the manufacturer as the Plaintiff’s buying agent or sells them to the Plaintiff as a separate seller.

A ○○ intends to sell the instant products to the Plaintiff, on its premise, a ○○ should acquire ownership of the instant products, and a ○○○’s acquisition of ownership of the instant products constitutes a case where a ○○ purchases the instant products from the manufacturer, where a ○○ owns the ownership of raw materials, and allows the manufacturer to process the instant products.

A. However, if ○○○ had a manufacturer process the instant products in advance, a “○○” should pay only a processing fee to the manufacturer, and the Plaintiff shall be paid the sum of the above processing fee and the raw material price. As seen earlier, if ○○ paid to the manufacturer the price of the goods and the commission corresponding to 8.25% of the price of the goods that the Plaintiff paid to the manufacturer, and there is no additional amount paid, the amount in the name of the price of the goods that ○○ paid to the manufacturer is not a simple processing fee, but a sales fee for the finished goods, and thus, it cannot be deemed that ○○ only allows the manufacturer to process the instant products.

2) Ultimately, in a case where a ○○○ is a seller of the instant product, only a case where a ○○ purchases the instant product from a manufacturer to acquire ownership, and then sells it to the Plaintiff. As such, it is necessary to examine whether a ○○○ purchases and sells the instant product from a manufacturer to the Plaintiff. Whether a ○○○ purchases the instant product from a manufacturer, depends on whether the ownership of the instant product was transferred from the manufacturer to a ○○○○○○, thereby causing risks arising therefrom, i.e., losses from the price fluctuation, loss, damage, etc.

However, according to the above facts, if the plaintiff orders the product of this case to a ○○, a "○" shall deliver the product of this case to the manufacturer by specifying the plaintiff's order number, customer numbers, and F.O.B transportation terms and conditions, and the manufacturer shall, as so demanded, load the product under F.O.B transportation terms and conditions, the manufacturer and the consignee are stated in the bill of lading, the consignee are insured by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff paid the transportation charges of this case. In full view of these circumstances, the plaintiff and the manufacturer sold the product of this case under F.O.B transportation terms and conditions, and the ownership of the product of this case shall be directly transferred from the manufacturer to the plaintiff.

In addition, the above facts and the following circumstances revealed, namely, a "OO" under a contract for purchase agency service between the plaintiff and a AOO" does not hold the ownership of the product, and the plaintiff agrees to have the right to make a final decision on the purchaser selection, price determination, transportation and other related affairs. AOOO made a contract for the purchase agency service and notified the manufacturer of the plaintiff's requirements as prescribed by the contract for the purchase agency service, and arranged matters related to the collection of samples, the inspection of goods, and the transportation of goods. AOO stated the plaintiff's order number and customer number when ordering the manufacturer, aOOO issued a invoice indicating a AOO as the plaintiff's representative, and aOO issued a invoice indicating a AOO as the plaintiff's agent, and the plaintiff delivered the plaintiff's request for defective treatment to the manufacturer and agreed on the defective treatment between the plaintiff and the manufacturer and the manufacturer, and the party bears the responsibility for the defect in the sales contract between the plaintiff and the manufacturer.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that ○○ is the Plaintiff’s purchasing agent for the instant products, and the instant fee is the purchase commission paid to the purchasing agent.

3) Meanwhile, as to the Defendants’ assertion on the issues of this case, the Defendants did not submit specific data to prove that ○○ is a purchasing agent in this case. However, as seen above, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the argument of this case shows that a ○○ is a purchasing agent for the products of this case. Even if the Plaintiff’s choice on a foreign manufacturer is restricted because ○○○-Sa○ AG actually selects and controls foreign manufacturers, the Plaintiff’s opinion is not only reflected in the process of selecting the manufacturer, but it is difficult to view a ○○○ as a purchasing agent for the Plaintiff’s purchase agent for purchasing products from limited manufacturers selected by ○○○○, and it is difficult to view a ○○○○ as a purchasing agent for the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that fees paid to ○○○○ constitutes a 300% product price for the products of this case, and thus, it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff did not report a certain amount of fees under subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act.

4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is reasonable, and the Plaintiff’s claim for correction of each of the instant claims is legitimate, but the rejection of the claim is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.