Scope of goods subject to the goods tax;

It is reasonable to interpret to the effect that, by adopting the listing principle on the provisions of taxable goods under the Commodity Tax Act, the taxable goods are listed in Article 1, and their tax rates are prescribed under the Enforcement Decree, and only the items are listed in the attached Table. Accordingly, it is reasonable to interpret to the effect that such goods do not necessarily mean that the taxable goods should not be subject to the customs duties, but those goods not listed therein are absolutely subject to the customs duties on goods.

Article 1 of the Goods Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Nu77 delivered on September 17, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 2414 delivered on November 17, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 68Nu171 delivered on July 10, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 643 delivered on July 643, 196; Supreme Court Decision 17Du58 delivered on July 17, 1969; Decision 1(3)1912 pages)

East Asia Pharmaceutical Corporation

Head of Eastern Tax Office

(1) The Defendant served a duty payment notice on the Plaintiff;

1. Amounting to KRW 1,771,728 on February 15, 1965; KRW 1,389,570 on March 15, 1965; KRW 1,67,69,570 on April 15, 1965; KRW 2,012,226 on May 15, 1965; KRW 2,232,750 on June 15, 1965; KRW 6,652,791 on July 15, 1965; KRW 6,652,791 on August 15, 1965; KRW 1,67,15,284 on September 15, 1965; and KRW 8,31,75,751 on June 16, 197; and

2. Amounting to KRW 14,295 on February 15, 1965; KRW 51,785 on March 15, 1965; KRW 124,633 on April 15, 1965; KRW 897,480 on May 15, 1965; KRW 990,00 on the same day; KRW 1,253,610 on June 15, 1965; KRW 909,693 on July 15, 1965; KRW 990,90 on August 15, 1965; KRW 7980 on September 15, 1965; and KRW 85,84 on June 16, 1985; and all of the imposition dispositions are invalid; and

(2) The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

(3) Of the costs of lawsuit, those arising from a claim for revocation of the imposition of goods tax shall be borne by the defendant, and those arising from a claim for restitution shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In addition to the plaintiff's selective claim for confirmation of invalidity and revocation with respect to the imposition of each goods tax as stated in Paragraph (1) above, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 47,115,715 won and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from November 14, 1965 (the day following the day when the gushe was delivered to the defendant) to the full payment day.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

(1) The defendant's argument as to the disposition of the first on March 15, 1965 in this lawsuit was filed after the expiration of the prescribed period of time under the National Tax Examination Request Act, and as to other disposition, it was filed without going through the procedure of reinvestigation, review, reexamination, etc. under the National Tax Examination Request Act, so this lawsuit shall be dismissed as it is in an unlawful and unfair manner. However, it is obvious that the plaintiff claims the invalidation of the above disposition and seeks the confirmation of invalidity and revocation thereof selectively. In such a case, the defendant's argument is groundless.

(2) Even if the plaintiff's goods were not listed in the "Grain No. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties Act" and the above goods were not listed in the "Grain No. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties Act" and thus, the plaintiff alleged that the above goods were invalid, because they were not listed in the "Grain No. 1 of the Customs Duties Act" and the above goods were not listed in the "Grain No. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties Act". Accordingly, the above goods are not listed in the "Grain No. 4 of the Customs Duties Act" and the item No. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree No. 1 of the Customs Duties Act, and the items of the goods are not listed in the "Grain No. 4 of the Customs Duties Act," and the items of the goods are not listed in the "Grain No. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties Act.

(3) As above, the disposition of imposition of the goods tax on the Plaintiff’s entry in the order is null and void due to a serious defect, but it is so obvious that it is fair to a certain extent, and in particular, the Defendant contests that it is lawful. Although the Plaintiff may receive a direct remedy for infringement of rights by civil litigation, the Plaintiff has a benefit of obtaining confirmation through the administrative litigation, unlike the case where it is null and void as it is significant and obvious that it is a defect. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim as above is accepted

(4) According to Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a claim for restitution can be filed in an administrative litigation to restore the original state or consolidate the claim for damages. However, even though its nature should be based on civil litigation, it must be based on civil litigation, it must meet the requirements of litigation as a civil litigation, such as the qualification of a party, except in the instance. Therefore, the duty to restore the goods where the customs duties are erroneously imposed is not the State, and the head of a tax office is not the head of a tax office, so the above claim is made against a person who is not a party as the defendant and thus, is dismissed.

As to the burden of litigation costs, the application of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Do-ju (Presiding Judge)