logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2020.02.27 2018두57599
관세 등 부과처분 취소청구
Text

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

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The dutiable value of imported goods for the imposition of customs duties shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the amount paid or to be paid actually by a vendee of goods sold to be exported to Korea as the price paid or to be paid for the use of patent rights, utility model rights, design rights, trademark rights and other rights similar thereto (hereinafter referred to

(Article 30(1)4 of the Customs Act: Provided, “The price for using the right to reproduce a specific device or original idea on another good in Korea using imported goods in which such device or original idea is embodied (hereinafter “the right to reproduce”) shall be excluded from the royalty added to the transaction price (see Article 19(2) main sentence of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act; hereinafter “instant provision”). As such, the price for using the right to reproduce is excluded from the customs value of imported goods, customs duties should be imposed according to the nature and quantity of goods at the time of filing the import declaration (main sentence of Article 16 of the Customs Act), and the right to reproduce is at issue after the import declaration, and it is not related to the imported goods itself at the time of the import declaration, and thus, the price for using the goods shall be treated separately from the value of the imported goods.

In light of the structure, language, content, legislative intent, etc. of the relevant provisions, it is reasonable to deem that the consideration for the use of a specific work embodied in imported goods as a means of public performance or broadcasting in Korea cannot be included in the dutiable value of imported goods in accordance with the instant overall provision.

2. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

(1) The Plaintiff is a business operator of TV channels with a share of 100% owned by C Limited Company B, an affiliate of the U.S. General Media Group B, and is abroad.

arrow