1. Customs duties imposed on the Plaintiff on November 3, 2014 KRW 6,531,140, value-added tax amounting to KRW 8,813,090, and penalty tax amounting to KRW 7,453,160.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From the end of 2012 to August 2014, the Plaintiff opened and operated a cyber mall B, B, B, and B, a B, and the next carpet D, and received orders from domestic buyers in the said cyber mall B (hereinafter “instant cyber mall”), such as health support food (hereinafter “instant goods”), from domestic buyers, and then delivered them again to domestic buyers, after purchasing goods ordered from domestic buyers on about 597 occasions in the instant cyber mall and being operated in the Republic of Korea (www.monzym.com) or the cyber mall, etc. operated in the United States (www.monzyms, www.us, www.mdmthobal.com) (hereinafter “www, etc.”).

B. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant imposed customs duties amounting to KRW 6,531,140, value-added tax (8,813,090), KRW 8,813,090, additional tax (7,453,160), and KRW 7,453,160 on the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was an import owner of the instant goods, but the Plaintiff imported the instant goods from around the end of 2012 to August 2014 on about 597 occasions, and was unlawfully exempted from customs duties by importing the instant goods for its own use by domestic buyers.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this cause after filing an objection around January 29, 2015.

7. The Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service filed a request for review, but was dismissed on June 20, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 11 (including numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the goods of this case were ordered from domestic buyers who had access to the cyber mall of this case and the goods ordered in Montreal, etc. were purchased and imported en bloc.