VienN Health Management Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Incheon Airport Head

August 18, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap61828 decided October 24, 2014

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s imposition of additional tax against the Plaintiff on September 17, 2013, as stated in the separate sheet, must be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

It is so decided as per Disposition 1 and 2.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the following modifications: 2. C. of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; 3.0 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; 4.0 of the Civil Procedure Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

C. Determination

1) Relevant provisions

Article 14 of the Customs Act provides that "Customs duties shall be imposed on imported goods"; Article 16 (1) (main sentence) of the same Act provides that "Customs duties shall be imposed on imported goods according to their nature and quantity at the time of filing an import declaration (including any import declaration prior to arrival; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article); and Article 42 (1) of the same Act provides that "the head of a customs office shall, when he/she collects the amount of customs duties "underpaid" pursuant to Article 38-3 (1) or (4) of the same Act, refund the amount calculated by applying the following formula (10/100 of the relevant shortage of customs duties; 2. The amount calculated by applying the following formula: The relevant shortage of customs duties 】 the period from the day following the initial due date of payment 】 the date of filing a revised declaration or the date of duty payment notice 】 The amount of customs duties shall be collected as additional duties; Article 106 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that "where the goods on which an import declaration was accepted are different from the content and the imported goods are imported from a foreign country;

2) The purport of the reimbursement system

Customs duties are collected by customs prior to consumption for the convenience of requisition, which is the kind of consumption tax imposed on the condition that the goods are consumed in Korea. The refund system provided for in Article 106 of the Customs Act cannot be viewed as other taxes, and is a special refund system only under the Customs Act, which is different from the terms and conditions of the contract, is imported mistakenly without the responsibility of the importer, and the goods are not consumed in Korea and are returned to the exporter without being consumed in Korea. In addition, refund for breach of contract is recognized since the imported goods are returned to the exporter without being consumed in Korea, and customs duties are again imposed at the time of re-import in Korea, and thus, refund for breach of contract is also for the

3) Whether an additional tax may be levied on the absence of any deficient amount of customs duties

In a case where goods on which an import declaration are accepted are returned again to an exporter based on Article 106(1) of the Customs Act and customs duties are refunded, the relevant goods shall not be deemed to be the imported goods subject to the imposition of customs duties, and Article 42(1) of the Customs Act, which provides that the head of a customs office shall collect penalty tax when collecting the amount of unpaid customs duties, and the provisions of tax-related Acts should be strictly interpreted. In addition to the aforementioned purport of the refund system, in a case where the goods on which the import declaration is accepted are returned again to an exporter based on Article 106(1) of the Customs Act and the customs duties are refunded, barring any special circumstance, the relevant goods are not subject to the imposition of customs duties, and therefore, there is no room to impose penalty tax on the said goods, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that additional tax cannot be imposed even if it is an additional tax for insincere payment as well as an additional tax for insincere payment.

4) In the instant case:

Based on Article 106(1) of the Customs Act, the Plaintiff returned the instant goods to the exporter within one year from the date on which the import declaration was accepted on the grounds that the instant goods are different from the terms of the contract, and received customs duties. Ultimately, the instant goods do not constitute imported goods subject to the imposition of customs duties, and thus, cannot be imposed customs duties, and there is no possibility that customs duties may not be less than the amount of customs duties. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the instant disposition was unlawful and pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is accepted as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Jan Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)