[1] Criteria for determining whether the goods are "the owner of the imported goods" under Article 6 (1) 1 of the former Customs Act

[2] The case holding that a person who has lent a business registration name does not constitute an "owner who has imported the goods" under Article 6 (1) 1 of the former Customs Act

[1] Article 6 (1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of Dec. 29, 2000) provides that "any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be a customs obligor." The main text of subparagraph 1 provides that "the owner who imports the goods for which an import declaration was made" refers to the actual owner who imports the goods. "the person who is a duty obligor under the above provision" refers to the actual owner who actually imports the goods. However, whether the goods are the actual owner or not shall be determined by taking into account the circumstances such as negotiations with the exporter, methods of participating in import procedures such as the establishment of a credit, payment of the price, the actual status of the methods of disposal and sale in the Republic of Korea of imported goods, and the relationship of attribution of the profit accrued from such import. Such interpretation also conforms to the principle of substantial taxation as applied to the Customs Act.

[2] The case holding that a person who filed an import declaration under the form of a business registration under the title of business registration does not constitute "the owner who imported the goods" under Article 6 (1) 1 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of Dec. 29, 200)

[1] Article 2(1)1 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305, Dec. 29, 2000; see current Article 2 subparag. 1 and 3); Article 6(1)1 (see current Article 19(1)1) of the former Customs Act / [2] Article 2(1)1 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305, Dec. 29, 200; see current Article 2 subparag. 1 and 3); Article 6(1)1 of the former Customs Act (see current Article 19(1)1)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10681 Delivered on April 11, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1098 Delivered on April 25, 2003

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Yongsan Customs Office and one other

Busan High Court Decision 2001Nu1420 delivered on August 16, 2002

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Article 6 (1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of Dec. 29, 200; hereinafter the same) provides that "any person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be a customs obligor." The main text of Article 6 (1) of the former Customs Act provides that "any person who has reported import of goods shall be a customs obligor." "the owner of the goods who has imported the goods" refers to the actual owner of the goods. However, whether the goods are the actual owner of the goods shall be determined by taking into account the circumstances such as negotiations with exporters, methods of participating in import procedures such as establishment of letters of credit, settlement of payments, etc., the actual condition of disposal and sale of the imported goods in the Republic of Korea, and the relationship of attribution of the profit accrued from such import. Such interpretation is in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation applicable to the Customs Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) upon Nonparty 1’s request, the plaintiff consented to the registration of the business of the "Save trading company," which is a trader in its own name; (b) Nonparty 1, who completed the registration of the business under the name of the plaintiff, entered the name of the importer of various documents (such as import declaration, a pledge on marking the country of origin after the import declaration is accepted, and a certificate on food, etc.) or the name of the plaintiff, who is the representative of the "Save trading company," and completed all import clearance procedures in the name of the plaintiff; (c) however, the plaintiff was not actually involved in the import process of the Save; and (d) Nonparty 1 was actively engaged in all business necessary for the import from the conclusion of import contract to the payment of the price and the sales and disposal in the domestic market; and (e) Nonparty 1 was found guilty of the fact that the import declaration price of Save was at a price lower than the actual price, and thus did not constitute a criminal declaration on the article 1.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the person liable for duty payment as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)