1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of refusal against the plaintiff on July 22, 2008 as to each duty and value-added tax amount stated in the separate sheet 1 "attached Form 2" and the separate sheet 2 "value-added tax" stated in the separate sheet "value-added tax and value-added tax (Difference)" as stated in the separate sheet 1 "value-added tax and value-added tax" as of April 7, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

(a)

The reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the portion to be determined additionally in the following B. As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited as it is.

B. Additional determination

(1) The gist of the Defendant’s assertion (A) is as follows: (a) according to the data, such as D&B; (b) D&B, (Dun & Braet; and (c) ORBS, etc., a company engaged in the wholesale business of sports goods (WHOL OPS GODS) or wholesale business (Wholesale & re-tailing), a company has been introduced as a company engaging in the wholesale business of sports goods (WHOL) around November 2005.

(b)

In the process of importing the instant products, a ○○○ filed a report on the arm’s length price method under the premise that the Plaintiff is a seller of the goods, such as having filed a report on the arm’s length price method under the Act on Resale of Goods. In addition, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff failed to perform the duty to report payment to a third party under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (C) even though the Plaintiff would result in the payment of the goods to a third party who is not a party to the instant product transaction, but a ○○ owns an independent production plant overseas, and the Hong Kong Customs is registered as a legal representative of the trademark right at A○○ (d○). According to the content of the management service contract concluded between the Plaintiff and a A○○, a ○○ controls and controls the Plaintiff.

(D) The Plaintiff paid a fee of 8.25% for the purchase of the instant product from another selling company within an A○○○○ Group, which is not a ○○○○○○○○○○ group. This supports that the instant fee corresponds to a certain rate of sales commission that is not related to a buying agent. In addition, the Plaintiff did not submit the manufacture and supply contract related to the instant product made between himself/herself and an overseas manufacturer or between a ○○ and an overseas manufacturer.

(E) In addition to these circumstances, since ○○ does not have the status of the Plaintiff’s purchasing agent in relation to the class of the instant product, each of the instant refusal disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, and (2) the conclusion of the contract was made between the Plaintiff and ○○○, including the following judgment: (a) the specific contents of the purchase agent agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the record; (b) the process of transferring the ownership of the instant product; (c) the process of transferring the ownership of the product; (d) the subject of risk of loss, loss, damage, or damage due to price fluctuation; and (e) the final obligor of the defect liability. In the instant case, it is true that there are some other special circumstances than a general small agent’s business size and status within A○○○○○ Group, a multinational company, and at least ○○○ was determined to have performed the Plaintiff’s role as the purchasing agent in relation to the importation of the instant product; and (e) the instant fee constitutes a legitimate buying agent fee paid to the Plaintiff.

① In light of the nature and meaning of the terms used, the recent implementation of A○’s work process change, etc., the description recorded in the ORBS, etc. cannot be deemed as falling under objective data to determine whether a○○ sells the instant product to the Plaintiff as an independent seller.

② It was true that the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the head of the competent tax office the arm’s length price computation method return, etc. as alleged in the Defendant’s assertion. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff made the above report in the process of paying the above goods price and the purchase agency fee together with a third party payment to a A○ upon the advance payment of the above price. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff omitted a third party payment return under Article 16 subparag. 3 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act with respect to the commission paid to A○, it is merely an issue to be reviewed separately, and it is difficult to conclude that the instant commission does not constitute a purchase agency fee on the basis of such circumstances.

③ It is insufficient to view that ○○ solely based on the materials indicated on the Internet site by the Defendant, such as the items indicated on the Internet site, is performing the role of an actual manufacturer or seller while holding an overseas production plant. It is also difficult to view that the circumstances that ○○○ is registered as the representative of ○○ Trademark in the Hong Kong Customs of the instant products fall under the incompatible premise that a ○○ is not deemed to be the Plaintiff’s purchasing agent. Moreover, even though a ○○ had partially performed international marketing and advertising activities in accordance with the management service contract concluded with the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was directly related to the business that the Plaintiff purchases the instant products from an overseas manufacturer as part of the activities aimed at enhancing the international image of the brand called ○○○○, as part of the activities aimed at enhancing the international image of the brand.

④ In light of the continuous and standardized transaction methods between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the foreign manufacturers, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not actually act as a buying agent solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to submit the pertinent contract by product. Moreover, most of the goods the Plaintiff imported from the Plaintiff appears to have purchased from a foreign manufacturer via a foreign manufacturer. However, even if there were cases where the Plaintiff paid the same percentage of commission in purchasing inventory goods from another company within a certain AOO group, such circumstance alone does not constitute sales commission irrelevant to a buying agent.

(2) Therefore, if the first instance judgment is justified and the defendant's appeal is not reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the other premise.