The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. Article 19(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that “any person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be liable to pay customs duties.” The main text of Article 19(1) provides that “in cases of goods, the import declaration of which has been filed, the owner of the goods imported” refers to the actual owner of the goods, who is liable to pay customs duties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8442 Delivered on April 11, 2003). Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition, the legality and outline of taxation disposition

In principle, the burden of proving the existence of a real fact is against the tax authority. Therefore, if a tax disposition is imposed on the grounds that the nominal owner who imported the goods and the actual owner who imported the goods are different, the burden of proving that the other party to the tax disposition is the actual owner who imported

B. The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) domestic consumers purchased functional health foods, etc. directly from U.S. local subsidiaries E, a foreign seller, through the Internet shopping mall in this case, and were exempted from customs duties, etc. upon being delivered as small-value duty-free goods; (b) the Defendant: (c) deemed that the Plaintiff, a domestic seller, imported functional health foods and sold them to domestic consumers while operating the Internet shopping mall in this case; (d) the Plaintiff avoided customs duties, etc. on November 25, 2009 by pretending that domestic consumers were directly imported from foreign sellers; and (e) the Plaintiff, a domestic seller, avoided customs duties,

Furthermore, the court below held that the Internet shopping mall of this case was established exclusively for domestic consumers and was paid in Korea for cash settlement, return and refund of sold goods, and the returned goods were resold by the plaintiff in Korea.