2016Nu535 Revocation of Disposition to impose customs duties, etc.

A Co., Ltd. (formerly: B)

Seoul

C Representative Director

Law Firm Barun (LLC)

Attorney Kang Ji-hun, Kim Ho-chul, Madon, Madon

Head of Daegu Customs Office

Litigation Performers D, E

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Guhap23757 Decided May 18, 2016

July 14, 2017

September 8, 2017

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A. On December 15, 2014, the part exceeding KRW 8,756,240 of the imposition disposition of KRW 172,821,30 against the Plaintiff and the part exceeding KRW 875,620 of the imposition disposition of KRW 17,282,120 of the value-added tax and the imposition disposition of KRW 17,620 of the value-added tax shall be revoked, respectively.

B. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. 10% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 90% shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of customs duties of KRW 172,821,30 on December 15, 2014 and value-added taxes of KRW 17,282,120 on the Plaintiff shall be revoked in entirety.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status and circumstances of import of goods

The Plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in the manufacture, sale, export, and import of divings and related liquid Sari. The Plaintiff imported divings, etc. manufactured by F companies located in Cambodia over 20 times from February 17, 2010 to August 8, 2013 (Import Declaration No. 41******-**************** the imported goods of this case). The imported goods of this case were imported from Cambodia to the Republic of Korea, but the transportation process was transported from Cambodia to Vietnam, and was completed the process of shipping from Cambodia to Vietnam into the Republic of Korea at sea.

B. Progress in the application of conventional tariffs to the first import declaration

1) On February 17, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) applied conventional tariffs pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the former FTA (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 25848, Dec. 11, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the FTA"); (b) on the basis of the Agreement on Trade in Goods under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation among the Governments of the Republic of Korea and the Member Countries of the Association of South Asian Nations (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement"); (c) on the Special Cases of the Customs Act for the Implementation of Free Trade Agreements (wholly amended by Act No. 13625, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former FTA"); and (d) on the basis of the import declaration, the Plaintiff submitted an import declaration, such as bill of lading attached to the bill of lading issued at the time of the import declaration; and (d) on the basis of the declaration of origin attached to the bill of lading.

2) On February 19, 2010, the head of Seoul Customs Office notified the Plaintiff on February 19, 2010 that the documents for examining whether to apply conventional tariffs should be supplemented by March 6, 2010 as follows.

Supplementary Document: (a) the original Certificate of Origin (a) of the ASEAN Convention; (b) the review of the application of the ASEAN Convention; (c) the reasons for the submission of all documents proving the fulfillment of the requirements of Annex 3 Article 9 (Principle of Direct Transport): the supplement of the essential documents;

3) At that time, the Plaintiff asked the Seoul Customs Office about what is the documents that can prove the fulfillment of the requirements of Annex 3 Article 9 (Direct Transport Rules) of the Rules of Origin and sent the above form to the person in charge of the transportation company of the imported goods of this case along with the notice of the supplement of the documents issued by the Seoul Customs Office on February 23, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "delivery of the title-based form" in Seoul Customs Office). The Plaintiff asked the Seoul Customs Office about how the documents that can prove the fulfillment of the requirements of Article 9 (Direct Transport Rules) of Annex 3 of the Rules of Origin were used in the case of transporting goods from Hong Kong to a foreign country via Hong Kong from the inland territory of China.

4) On March 4, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,653,800 in total of KRW 8,756,240, value-added tax and KRW 7,897,560, when filing an application for correction of the import declaration prior to filing a request for correction of the customs duty (number 6116.10-100 of the tariff rate of 8% and tariff No. 613.00-200 of the tariff rate of 613.00 of the tariff). The Plaintiff submitted a request for correction of the customs duty, etc. on March 5, 2010 along with an application for the ex post facto application of conventional tariffs for the first import declaration. The Plaintiff submitted a certificate of origin and truck truck waybill (TRUK MFESST, Cambodia-bed land transport-related bill of lading-related container seals and customs seal numbers and bill of lading-related container seals; hereinafter referred to as “TT/M-N” and Korea bill of lading.

6) As to the first import declaration on April 2, 2010, the head of the Seoul Customs Office applied conventional tariffs, and pursuant to Article 38-3(3) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 11121, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as the “former Customs Act”) and Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23602, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act”), the head of the Seoul Customs Office decided to rectify customs duties of KRW 0, value-added taxes of KRW 7,021,940. The head of the Seoul Customs Office made a decision to rectify customs duties of KRW 7,021,940 to the Plaintiff, notified the correction of the amount of customs duties and notified the Plaintiff to request refund of the amount reduced upon the Plaintiff’s request for refund (hereinafter referred to as the “instant reduction”).

(c) Progress in the application of conventional tariffs to the import declaration in Articles 2 through 20.

1) After the import declaration, the Plaintiff filed an additional import declaration with the head of Seoul Customs Office four times more as follows: (a) paid each customs duty in the condition attached only to the documents indicated in the column of “documents submitted at the beginning” in the table below, with priority given that the document preparation time is imminent; and (b) immediately supplement the documents indicated in the column of “documents submitted at the beginning” in the table below; (c) upon receipt of a request for rectification of the application of conventional tariffs from the head of Seoul Customs Office for the application of conventional tariffs; and (d) upon receipt of a request for rectification of the application of conventional tariffs from the head of Seoul Customs Office for the application of conventional tariffs;

A person shall be appointed.

2) From May 12, 2011 to August 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for the application of conventional tariffs with the head of Seoul customs office, along with each country of origin certificate, commercial invoice, packing statement, T/M, and bill of lading, and the head of Seoul customs office accepted all of the Plaintiff’s applications.

3) On August 2013, the Plaintiff was recommended by the Seoul Customs office to submit a transit bill of lading issued in the exporting Party instead of the existing T/M and the bill of lading to apply conventional tariffs. From August 31, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a transit bill of lading issued in Cambodia (Evidence 7) to the customs office and received conventional tariffs.

D. On August 5, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of “written investigation of origin” to verify whether the Plaintiff violated the requirements for the application of conventional tariffs with respect to the first or twenty import declarations, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit documents proving that the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for direct transport for the application of conventional tariffs, including the certificate of origin, the certificate of completion of declaration, the certificate of completion of declaration, the commercial invoice, the contract, the commercial letter (e-mail), the packing statement, the requirement confirmation document, etc., the transport documents (B/L, AWB, etc.), the transit bill of lading, and the certificate of transshipment.

2) Although the Plaintiff submitted relevant documents, on October 8, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of origin inspection that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for direct transport for the application of conventional tariffs. In other words, although the goods for which the first or second import declaration was filed were transported from Cambodia, to Vietnam via a third country, an exporting country, was transported to the Republic of Korea, it may not be applied to conventional tariffs since “a bill of lading issued by the exporting Party” under Article 9 of the Annex 3 Rules of Origin (hereinafter referred to as the “Annex 3 Rules”) and Article 19 of the Addenda 19 of the “Rules of Origin Operation for the Rules of Origin” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of Origin Operation”) were not submitted, and thus, “a bill of lading issued by the exporting Party” cannot be applied to conventional tariffs.

3) Accordingly, on November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection under Article 13(8) of the former FTA Customs Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (wholly amended Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 566, Jul. 1, 2016). After dismissing the Plaintiff’s objection, the Defendant issued a notice of correction of the amount of customs duties at KRW 172,821,30, value-added tax, KRW 17,282,120, additional tax, and KRW 46,867,860 of the former Customs Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14379, Dec. 20, 2016) on December 15, 2014.

4) On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On July 13, 2015, the Tax Tribunal rendered a judgment that “The Plaintiff appears to have difficulty in expecting submission of a transit bill of lading to apply conventional tariffs in light of the Plaintiff’s trust in the correction of the reduction in this case by the head of Seoul Customs Office and submitted T/M only to some cases, and thus, there is a justifiable reason not to impose additional duties.” The Plaintiff revoked the imposition of additional duties of KRW 46,867,860, but the Plaintiff’s remaining appeal was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 20 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) meeting the requirements for deeming direct transport;

The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that no “through bill of lading” as provided in this Agreement, the Annex Regulations, and Article 19 of the Operational Procedures for the First or Second Import Declaration is submitted with respect to the goods on which the first or twenty import declaration has been made. However, where the meaning of “ through bill of lading” is not explicitly stated in the instant agreement, the meaning of “ through bill of lading” is unclear. If the first carriage section is limited to a bill of lading issued by a maritime transport business entity, such as this case, the issue of demanding documents that cannot be issued in the event of a land transport business entity is unclear. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is based on the provision against the clarity of the requirements for taxation and the principle of no taxation without law. Even if not, the “through bill of lading” under Article 19 of the Operational Procedures is merely an example of “documents proving that the requirements for direct transport have been met” under Article 9(2) of the Annex. The first or second import declaration both must be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for direct submission of the instant bill of lading.

2) Claims that violate the principle of trust and good faith, the principle of self-detention, and the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation.

However, even if not so, the Seoul Customs Office issued the Plaintiff’s request for the submission of the instant documents for the ex post facto application of conventional tariffs, and subsequently rendered a correction of the instant reduction that applied conventional tariffs to the Plaintiff’s submission of the documents for the ex post facto application of conventional tariffs constitutes an expression of public opinion by a tax authority. The Plaintiff believed it and submitted only the Plaintiff’s submission of the instant documents instead of a transit bill of lading in lieu of a transit bill of lading import declaration. However, the Defendant’s act of denying the application of conventional tariffs on the ground that a transit bill of lading was not submitted is unlawful against the good faith principle, the principle of self-defense, the principle of non-taxation, non-taxation practice, and the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

(c) Whether the import declaration of any of subparagraphs 1 through 20 satisfies the deemed requirements for direct transport;

1) Article 5 of the instant Agreement and Article 9(1) of the Annex provide that “The conventional tariff shall apply to a good transported directly between the exporting Party and the importing Party’s territory” and Article 9(2) of the Annex provides that “The good shall be considered to have been transported directly if the good is transported through one or more third countries, other than the exporting Party and the importing Party’s territory: (i) the transit is justified by consideration only in relation to geographical or erroneous transport requirements; (ii) the good has not been traded or consumed in transit; and (iii) the good has not undergone any operation other than unloading, shipment, or any operation required to maintain it in good condition; and (iv) the good has not undergone any operation other than unloading, re-loading, or any operation required to keep it in good condition” (hereinafter referred to as “direct transport requirement”).

In addition, Article 19 of the Appendix Operational Procedures provides that "in the event of carriage through the territory of one or more intermediate transit countries, other than the territory of the exporting Party and the importing Party, the transit bill of lading issued by the exporting Party, (b) the original certificate of origin, (c) the copy of the original copy of the commercial invoice of the goods, and (d) other evidentiary documents that meet the requirements of Article 9 of Annex 3, the documents must be submitted to the relevant government authorities of the importing Party". Meanwhile, Article 3 of the former FTA Customs Act provides that the former FTA Customs Act or the Customs Act prior to the application of this Agreement shall prevail in the event of conflict with the Agreement.

Therefore, Article 19 of the Appendix Operational Procedures if a conventional tariff is applied according to the requirements for direct transport.

A. We examine whether the meaning of the bill of lading, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is unclear, and whether it can be replaced by other documents merely because it is an exemplary provision.

2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the meaning of a transit bill of lading and the provisions of the instant agreement, the relevant statutes, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the meaning of a transit bill of lading as prescribed in Article 19(a) of the Appendix Operational Procedures cannot be deemed null and void, as it is unclear, and it shall be deemed as a document that must be submitted essential for the application of conventional tariffs according to the requirements for direct consignment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the different premise cannot be accepted.

① Under the principle of no taxation without representation, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, the strict interpretation of the provision regarding the need for reduction and exemption that can be clearly viewed as a preferential provision is also consistent with the principle of fair taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1191, Jan. 27, 201). This doctrine applies to the interpretation and application of tax treaties having the same effect as the law. The instant agreement is in the special position of the Customs Act, and is intended to exceptionally apply conventional tariffs to imported goods transported directly for the purpose of trade expansion between participating countries. Since the provision regarding the requirements for direct transport is re-admitting an exception to the principle of direct transport, it must be strictly interpreted.

② Since it is difficult for the tax authorities of importing countries to verify the authenticity of origin or the fulfillment of direct transport requirements if imported goods pass through a third country, the procedures for the operation of the Appendix clearly stipulate the procedures for verification of origin and the verification of direct transport requirements by requiring the submission of documents, such as a transit bill of lading or certificate of origin, which could easily confirm the authenticity of origin or the requirements for direct transport, and institutionizes the methods for the verification of origin and the procedures for verification of direct transport requirements, and for the exclusion of preferential tariffs, if not complying with such procedures. The disadvantage of excluding preferential tariffs due to the failure to comply with the procedures for verification of origin, etc.

③ If, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is possible to substitute documents, such as securities on transit under Article 19 of the Appendix Operational Procedures, with other documents, by viewing the same as an exemplary provision, there is a difference in the degree of proof to determine whether the requirements for direct transport are met by either member country or by domestic customs office, and thus, the conventional tariffs may be arbitrarily applied. Therefore, the securities on transit under the foregoing provision cannot be substituted with other documents, and if a transit bill of lading is not submitted, the conventional tariffs cannot be applied due to the lack of procedural requirements for deeming direct transport.

④ The term “through bill of lading” is a transport instrument issued by a single carrier, securing the responsibility for the transport of all sections, even in cases where a single carrier intervenes in multiple carriages during the course of carriage of the cargo to a destination and uses the same type or two or more different means of transport alternates. If a single carrier issues a transit bill of lading as a single transport document with respect to the entire carriages from an exporting Participating State to an importing Participating State, it is effective to prevent an act of an exporter or importer by directly controlling the cargo in transit from an exporting State to an importing State through transit, thereby preventing trade or consumption in the country of transit, or further processing in the country of transit. As such, the customs authority may verify the authenticity of the country of origin or the fulfillment of the requirements for direct deeming transport, and thus, the submission of a transit bill of lading is also necessary for the efficient implementation of this Agreement.

⑤ In light of the following circumstances, the transit bill of lading is used as an expression “bill of lading” and normally a bill of lading is issued by a maritime carrier (Article 852 of the Commercial Act). However, considering the following circumstances, the transit bill of lading does not only be construed as a “bill of lading issued by a maritime carrier,” but also is interpreted as a “multimodal transport document issued by a carrier, securing the responsibility for the entire carriage section, regardless of the type or volume of the means of transport used in the course of transporting the goods,” the Plaintiff’s assertion that points out the issue is not acceptable. The reason why the submission of the transit bill of lading is required as a direct consignment requirement for the application of conventional tariffs in this case is to prevent additional processing or laundering of origin during the course of transport, which may also arise in the course of land transport or air transport.

B. Since the Participating States of the Agreement include the Republic of Lao People's Democratic Republic of Korea, which is a inland country without sea, it cannot be deemed that the transit bill of lading was stipulated in mind only on the sea transportation.

C. The term "Bill", an English expression in the transit bill of lading, is widely used in the meaning of general transport securities, including the bill of lading (issuance by land carrier) and the air waybill (issuance by air carrier), as well as the bill of lading issued by the maritime carrier.

D. In light of the FTA (FTA) as one form of a regional trade agreement, customs duties and other barriers to trade between the Parties are concluded to expand trade and promote market integration by removing customs duties and other barriers to trade in goods and services between the Parties. The FTA customs law and the instant agreement are aimed at creating new employment opportunities, raising living standards, and ensuring the continuous increase of real income by expanding trade and investment flows between the Parties at the same time by establishing a free trade zone between the Parties. In light of the fact that the FTA (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du50399, Aug. 18, 2016), the application of conventional tariffs cannot be unfairly excluded by forcing customs authorities of each country to interpret the concept of transit bill of lading.

3) We examine whether the import declaration of this case satisfies the requirements for direct consignment, ① the import declaration of this case was imported from Cambodia to Vietnam, but the transport process was transported from Cambodia to Vietnam, and the transport process was completed from Vietnam to Vietnam, ② the Plaintiff submitted only the documents of this case without submitting a transit bill of lading (multimodal transport securities) at the time of the first or second import declaration. Accordingly, the goods imported from the first or twentyth import declaration did not meet the requirements for direct consignment under Article 19 of the Appendix Operation Procedures. Accordingly, the Defendant may be excluded from the application of conventional tariffs under Article 17 of the Appendix Operation Procedures and Article 16 of the former FTA. Accordingly, the disposition of this case that did not apply conventional tariffs to the goods for which the first or twenty import declaration was filed is legitimate. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the other premise is without merit.

D. Whether the instant disposition is unlawful against the principle of trust and good faith

1) Relevant legal principles

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to a tax authority’s act in a tax law relationship, the tax authority must express a public opinion that is the subject of trust to taxpayers, and ② the taxpayer’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the reliance of the tax authority’s reliance on the reliance of the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the

In such a case, an administrative agency’s expression of public opinion may be made implicitly and explicitly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9370, Sept. 4, 2002). In principle, an administrative agency’s expression of public opinion needs to be made by a tax official in a position of responsibility. However, it does not necessarily necessarily lead to a formal allocation of authority under an administrative organization, but should be determined by substance in light of the person in charge’s organizational position and duties, the specific circumstance leading to the relevant speech and behavior, and the taxpayer’s credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du1115, Jun. 12, 2008).

2) Determination

A) As seen earlier, on February 19, 2010, the head of Seoul Customs Office notified the Plaintiff of the first import declaration of conventional tariffs on February 19, 2010, to supplement documents necessary to examine whether to apply conventional tariffs; and (2) the Plaintiff paid customs duties and value-added taxes on the first import declaration first due to a shortage of time to prepare supplementary documents; and (3) filed a request for correction of customs duties, etc. on March 5, 2010 with respect to the first import declaration; (4) the Plaintiff submitted a certificate of origin issued in Cambodia and a bill of lading issued in Cambodia (the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th import declaration; 6th import declaration on April 2, 2010 through the 10th import declaration; and (5) the Seoul Customs Office submitted a reduction of the amount of customs duties and value-added taxes after the second import declaration from the 20th import declaration to the 20th import declaration on April 2, 2010 to the Plaintiff.

B) In full view of the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations on the rectification and refund of the amount of customs duties (Article 10(3) through (5) of the former FTA, in particular, where an importer applies for ex post facto application of conventional tariffs and claims for rectification of the amount of customs duties, the head of the relevant customs office shall review them and notify the applicant of whether to correct the amount of customs duties within two months and refund the amount of customs duties.) The head of the Seoul Customs Office appears to have expressed a public opinion on the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s application for ex post facto application of conventional tariffs and claims for rectification of the amount of customs duties on the first import declaration for which the transit bill of lading is not accompanied only by the Plaintiff’s submission of the relevant documents; and (b) the legality and feasibility of the determination that the Plaintiff’s application of conventional tariffs was deemed to have satisfied; and (c) the tax authority’s disposition constitutes documents proving that the Plaintiff’

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that "the correction of the reduction in this case is simply a factual act that received the plaintiff's application or claim simply cannot be accepted."

However, the above fact that the Seoul Customs office issued an inquiry about the plaintiff's "written evidence to meet the plaintiff's direct transport requirements" is insufficient to view that the tax authority has yet expressed a public opinion on this issue. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

C) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s submission of conventional tariffs only to the Plaintiff’s documents presented by the Plaintiff without submitting a transit bill of lading at the second through twenty import declaration pursuant to the above tax authority’s public opinion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du7855, Sept. 5, 2010) is subject to the principle of good faith. However, the Plaintiff’s subsequent application of conventional tariffs on the first import declaration or request for correction of duty amount (see, e.g., March 5, 2010), as well as acts done before the tax authority expressed its public opinion, is merely an act done before the tax authority expressed its public opinion, and the Plaintiff’s submission of conventional tariffs to the Plaintiff is not subject to the principle of good faith, the principle of good faith, non-taxation principle, and the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du785, Sept. 5, 2003).

D) Furthermore, as to whether there was a cause attributable to the Plaintiff in reliance on the Plaintiff’s expression of public opinion, the following was examined: (i) the Plaintiff received the instant short-term delivery by questioning in advance what constitutes “documents that can prove the Plaintiff’s fulfillment of direct transport requirements” under the Annex to Seoul Customs; (ii) until August 2013, it appears to have not been well aware that the instant bill of lading includes “documents that can prove the fulfillment of direct transport requirements” for the application of conventional tariffs; (iii) the Plaintiff recommended the Seoul Customs office to submit a transit bill of lading around August 31, 2013; (iv) the Plaintiff submitted a transit bill of lading issued in Cambodia as of August 31, 2013 and received conventional tariffs; and (v) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff submitted a bill of lading bill of lading to the Seoul Customs office to be subject to the application of conventional tariffs 186 or 86; and thus, (v) the Plaintiff’s submission of additional tariffs 13, 2015.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, among the dispositions in this case, the part of the first import declaration that is excluded from the application of the above principle of trust and good faith (the protection of trust and good faith) and the part that exceeds the imposition disposition of the value-added tax of KRW 875,620 (the part of the total value-added tax of KRW 17,282,120) (the imposition disposition of customs duties and value-added tax on the second or second import declaration of KRW 17,282,120) is unlawful and thus, should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder should be dismissed as it is without merit. Since part of the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this, it is unfair to accept part of the defendant's appeal and to revise the judgment of the court of first instance as per Disposition, it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge and judge system;

Judges Kim Tae-tae

Judge Gyeong-man