1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an import declaration with the head of Busan Customs Office on July 8, 201, on the basis of an origin declaration issued by an exporter, applying the conventional tariff rate (0%) under the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea, the European Union, and its Member States (hereinafter “instant Agreement”) on the part of the Plaintiff with respect to one of the main machinery for manufacturing (hereinafter “instant machinery”) imported from Prring & G Machry Ltd. (hereinafter “ exporter”).

B. Around May 20, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to prepare a statement of origin verification, stating that it is unclear whether the instant machinery satisfies the origin standard under Article 2 of the Protocol on the Definition of Origin Products and the Methods of Administrative Cooperation (hereinafter “instant Protocol”) with respect to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff prepared and submitted the statement of question to the Defendant on June 25, 2013.

C. In accordance with Article 27 of the instant Protocol and Article 13 of the former Act on Special Cases of the Customs Act for the Implementation of Free Trade Agreements (wholly amended by Act No. 13625, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter “former Free Trade Agreement Customs Act”), the Defendant requested the English customs authority (HM5 Revalue & Cusoms) to verify the origin of the instant machinery on March 10, 2014, on the ground that the statement of origin verification submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be confirmed whether it satisfies the origin standards.

On November 3, 2014, the British customs authority respondeded to the purport that “the instant machinery, as a result of the verification of origin, fails to meet the origin standard, is ineligible for conventional tariffs (hereinafter “the previous reply”),” and the above reply reached the Defendant on November 26, 2014.

E. According to the above reply, the Defendant’s country of origin reported on the instant machinery for the reasons prescribed in Article 16(1)2 of the former Customs Act is different from its actual country of origin.