1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for this judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the term “user fee” of the first instance court at the bottom of the third level judgment; (b) the term “user fee of the goods” of the first instance court at the bottom of the third level judgment; (c) the term “user fee of the goods”; (d) the term “user fee of the goods”; and (e) the term “user fee of the goods” of the fourth through fourth level of the first instance judgment as follows; and (e) the term “the reasons for the first instance judgment,” with the exception of any addition under the following two, shall be cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (e) the text of Article 420

The relevant legal doctrine provides that the dutiable value of imported goods shall be determined based on the transaction price calculated by adding and adjusting the “price using the trademark right and other similar rights” to the price actually paid or payable by a buyer for the goods sold to be exported to Korea.

(Article 30(1)4 of the Customs Act provides for the calculation of tax base under tax-related Acts, regardless of the name or form of income, profit, property, act or transaction (Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). This also applies to the interpretation and application of the Customs Act.

Therefore, whether the amount paid by a buyer to a trademark right holder constitutes a “price for the use of trademark rights and other rights similar thereto,” which serves as an element for the adjustment of the addition of the dutiable value of imported goods, ought to be determined depending on whether the substance of the transaction has the nature of consideration for the use of rights, such as trademark rights

(2) Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides that “The price using a trademark right shall be the amount paid by the buyer according to the terms and conditions of the transaction in relation to the relevant imported goods in order to be added to the actual payment price.”

Supreme Court Decision 2016Du34059 Decided October 27, 2016.