Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jeon Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seoul Customs Office

July 18, 2012

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Each imposition of KRW 151,485,440, value-added tax of KRW 204,150,040, and penalty tax of KRW 150,99,970 against the Plaintiff on November 25, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant, “On the Internet shopping mall (Internet address 1 omitted), etc. (Internet address 2 omitted) where the Plaintiff sells functional health foods, etc.; hereinafter “the shopping mall of this case”) was actually operated by the Plaintiff, and received a request from domestic consumers for the purchase of the functional health foods through the shopping mall of this case from Nonparty 1 (SP) residing in the U.S. and received the purchase of the functional health foods from 121,834 domestic consumers from April 1, 2006 to November 21, 2008, the Defendant directly purchased the imported functional health foods from 121,83,264, etc. to 209, 201, 205, 209, 209, 201, 30, 9, 205, 209, 20, 209, 30, 29, 208, 30, 29, 208, 30, 29, 28, etc.

B. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on February 2, 2010, and was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on May 23, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff only carried out the business of return to Nonparty 1 (foreign seller), who is a foreign seller, and Nonparty 1 (foreign seller) is the actual operator of the shopping mall of this case. Thus, the shopping mall of this case constitutes “transaction in which a domestic buyer purchases and imports goods directly from a foreign seller’s cyber mall, etc.” under Article 1-3 subparag. 1 of the Notice. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise that the actual operator of the shopping mall of this case constitutes “import shopping mall transaction” under Article 1-3 subparag. 4 of the Notice, on the premise that he is the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The current status of the establishment and operation of the U.S. N.S. N.S. N.

(A) Around June 2004, Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1: the Nonparty 1) left the Republic of Korea and registered the domain name of the shopping mall of this case as follows.

On June 2, 2004, the domain name (Internet address 3 omitted) dated April 23, 2005 (Internet address 4 omitted), June 24, 2006 (Internet address 5 omitted), and (Internet address 2 omitted) (Internet address 1 omitted)

(1) The previous domain name was established by the Food and Drug Stabilization Administration as the domestic access was obstructed.

(B) On February 22, 2005, Nonparty 1 (OO) filed an application with ○○○○○○○○, and filed an application with the Government of the State of California for a seller’s license to operate a personal business and pay a business tax by performing the individual business. On June 13, 2006, Nonparty 1 (OHLSAE-HELH SUPPPPPPPMIN) as “WHE” with the business objectives as “WHURE RELLL-HE-HPPPPPPPPPSIN”, a U.S. subsidiary (O.S. subsidiary) and established NIS Bawa (NTWRERERE RERES REC.; hereinafter “U.S. NNN NNN NNGR”). Nonparty 1 (O.S.) and his spouse, the non-party 2, each of whose shares are owned by 50% 50% of the stocks.

(C) With respect to the U.S. N. N.S. Republic, the details of the corporate tax returns filed in 2007, 2008, and 2009 are as follows:

US$ 2,493,142 US$ 3,426,228,251,711 (Conversion: 2,339,065,842) (Conversion: 4,308,481,777,764) (Conversion: 4,730,777,764) sale KRW 2,143,278,270,045 US 3,561,17 (Conversion: 2,100,823,823,456,588) sale in 209 (Conversion: 4,158,232,262,265,265,284,384,365,385,384,465,365,364,275,365,254,385,254,365,384,275,254,3846,25,3845,25,25,20

(1) The conversion amount was calculated on December 31 of each year in accordance with the base rate for sale.

(D) Of the deposit statements of the purchase price of the card product in the shopping mall in this case, the term "○○○○○, RoOY SHIN (name used in the United States in the U.S.)" is written in the information column of the settlement party. In addition, the business license issued by the U.S. N. N. on January 29, 2009 is written in the name of "○○○○○○○/NATURESRE, INC. RHIN’s LARE, and the type of business as "INITMININ MAE HEALS".

(E) On the other hand, the warehouse of the United States Newawawa is on display of products seen as functional health foods, etc., and stores for delivery of such products.

(2) The current status of the establishment and operation of the Republic of Korea

(A) On January 18, 2007, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name “Neowa”, the location of the business “Incheon Gyeyang-gu”, the type of business “Incheon-gu”, “import functional health foods”, and the representative “Plaintiff”, and operated Neowa (hereinafter “Korea Neowa”) by employing Nonparty 3 as an employee.

(B) The Plaintiff processed the goods purchased in the shopping mall of this case through the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea was closed on December 17, 2009, when there were no data on business activities other than the shopping mall of this case.

(C) Meanwhile, on June 17, 2009, investigators affiliated with the Defendant visited Nitwa on the Republic of Korea, and at the same time two computers and four telephone calls were installed in the office equivalent to ten square meters. The Plaintiff voluntarily submitted to investigators two copies of the deposit passbook, one copy of the joint payment slip in which details of purchase orders are recorded, one copy of the joint payment slip in the U.S. and one copy of the goods ordered in the U.S. four computers printed out from Nonparty 3’s computers, one copy of the return collection cell file, two diseases of imported sampling functional foods.

(3) The current status of operation of the shopping mall of this case

(A) Considering the specific process of sales of the shopping mall of this case, ① Nonparty 1 (Outboard Person) purchased functional food, etc. from the Plaintiff’s health-related food wholesaler in the wholesale price through the U.S. N. N. N. N. and stored in the local warehouse of the U.S. N. D. (overboard Person 1 (overboard Person 1) (overboard Party 1). ② When advertising goods in the shopping mall of this case, the name, origin, manufacturing and brand, characteristics, ingredients, and consumer price of the goods were written in Korean language (in the shopping mall of this case, most of the advertising explanations describing the function, research, ingredients, etc. of the goods and leading the purchase thereof). ③ When selling the goods by linking the shopping mall of this case to the shopping mall of this case, Nonparty 1 (overboard Person 1) settled the goods + transportation cost by credit card or credit account transfer, and ④ upon receipt of orders, Nonparty 1 (overboard Party 1) supplied the goods to the Republic of Korea △△△△△△, etc. at the domestic customs office’s and domestic transportation.

(B) When domestic consumers pay the sales price of goods in cash, account transfer should be made. However, the sales price of goods transferred from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2009 to the Agricultural Cooperative and the National Bank Account in the name of Nonparty 1 (outboard person) posted on the shopping mall website of this case. The details of the sales price of goods transferred from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2009 are as follows.

(1) Details of payment for goods sales.

Non-party 25,907,907,585,186,346 won, non-party 1 (non-party 5, etc.) bank account in the name of Non-party 4, etc. in the name of Non-party 2,585, 186,346 won, non-party 5, etc. in the name of Non-party 31,436, 354,638,243 won in the aggregate of KRW 5,939,824,589 won in the name of Non-party 4

(2) Details of sales proceeds of goods and details of the use thereof.

Non-party 1 (Non-party 2,913,50,90 won by the account transfer in the name of Korea Cyti Bank under the name of non-party 1 (non-party 1: the head of non-party 1 (non-party 1) included in the main sentence) 210,00,000 won, non-party 7 (employee Non-party 27,50,000,000 won in the name of non-party 8 (individual debt) 48,00,000 won in the name of non-party 9 (individual debt) 30,000,000 won in the name of non-party 1 (non-party 1: the non-party 2,03,60,000 won in the name of non-party 50,700,000 won in the name of non-party 1 (individual debt), 859,300,000 won in the name of non-party 1 (the non-party 1)

(C) If a domestic consumer makes a payment by credit card, the credit card payment shall be paid to Nonparty 1 (ex-post) bank account in HSBC. United States Merant Svice, a credit card settlement agency, deposited the credit card sales amount at USD 300,000 each month with the HSBC bank account in the name of Nonparty 1 (ex-post).

(D) The Plaintiff, while managing the Agricultural Cooperatives and the National Bank Account in the name of Nonparty 1 (OB). Nonparty 3, an employee of Korea Nitwegian, performed import clearance and return in Korea under the Plaintiff’s control. Nonparty 7, an employee of the United States Nitwegian, entered Korea while carrying out import clearance and delivery in the United States, and performed duties in the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea. Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 (OB) instructed Nonparty 3 or Nonparty 7 to promptly process the customer’s civil petition through the Internet bulletin board of the shopping mall in the United States while managing the purchase of goods and the shopping mall in the United States.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 through 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 through 36 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 8, 12, and 38 (including paper numbers), the fact-finding results to the head of Seoul Immigration Office of this Court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Type of the shopping mall transaction of this case

(A) Article 1-3 of the Notice of this case provides: ① Transactions in which domestic buyers directly purchase and import goods from a cyber mall, etc. of a foreign seller (hereinafter “foreign cyber mall transactions”); ② Transactions in which domestic buyers directly purchase goods from a foreign seller’s cyber mall, etc. are imported using services of a specific electronic commerce company (hereinafter “delivery/payment agency transactions”); ③ Transactions in which domestic buyers directly purchase goods from a foreign seller’s cyber mall, etc. are used by an electronic commerce company’s services (hereinafter “distribution/payment agency transactions”); ③ Transactions in which domestic buyers enter into an import agency contract (term contract) based on the import agency transactions publicly announced by an electronic commerce company in a cyber mall, etc.; ③ Transactions in which foreign sellers do not bear any type of profit/loss or liability arising from import agency transactions, other than fees or liability for import agency transactions, and which meet certain requirements, such as transactions (as subparagraph 3; hereinafter “import agency transactions”); ④ Transactions in which electronic commerce companies disclose goods and information, etc. based on their own account, and receive a domestic seller’s request for import declaration of imported goods, etc.

(B) First of all, in consideration of the following: (a) Nonparty 1 (OO) purchased functional health foods directly from wholesalers in the U.S. N. N. N. N. and held them in the warehouse; (b) the price listed in the shopping mall of this case is a consumer price newly determined not to be the price purchased from wholesalers; (c) the shopping mall of this case contains a detailed description of the function, manufacturer, ingredients, etc. of the product; and (d) the description of delivery and settlement, etc. is only an incidental description; and (d) the shopping mall of this case bears the responsibility for the defect of the product; (b) the shopping mall of this case is not a type of "delivery/payment agency transaction" (No. 2) or "import agency transaction" (No. 3) that does not bear the responsibility for profit, loss, and transaction due to the sale of the product; and (c) the transaction constitutes an "foreign seller's transaction (import sub-paragraph 1) or a transaction in the form of an electronic commerce business operator's own responsibility for transaction.

Furthermore, if the shopping mall transaction of this case is conducted at a cyber mall of an overseas seller, the price reported by the domestic consumer should be the price of goods purchased from the shopping mall of this case. The price of the shopping mall of this case was reported by the customs clearance wholesaler at the import declaration price. ② The shopping mall of this case was established exclusively for the domestic consumer, and cash transaction, return and refund were made in Korea. ③ In light of the current status of the establishment and operation of the four U.S. N. N. N. N., Korea, the import shipper of this case, avoided various obligations under the domestic law, and can be sold at a price lower than that of the domestic shopping mall of this case, which is subject to customs duties, and thus, it would be established to secure price competitiveness. If the shopping mall transaction of this case is classified into the "cyber mall transaction of an overseas seller", customs duties should be imposed on imported goods in principle, but it would result in a locked effect of the provisions of the Customs Act that provides exemption or reduction of customs duties, etc., as well as all kinds of obligations prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act, etc.

(2) Operators of the shopping mall of this case

(A) Article 19(1)1 of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that “the owner who imports the goods for which the import declaration was made shall be liable to pay customs duties; and Article 2(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “the importer of the goods” shall be liable to pay value-added taxes; and Article 2(2)2 of the Notice provides that “in the case of goods falling under the imported shopping mall type, electronic commerce companies shall be eligible for import declaration.” Therefore, the operator of the shopping mall of this case shall be liable to pay customs duties and value-added taxes as the import declaration owner.

On the other hand, the "import shipper" means an actual owner who imports the goods. However, the issue of whether the goods are an actual owner shall be determined by considering the following: (a) negotiation with an exporter; (b) the method of participating in import procedures such as the issuance of a credit; and (c) the method of disposal and sale in the Republic of Korea of imported goods; (d) the actual state of disposal and sale in the Republic of Korea of imported goods; and (e) the relationship of attribution of profits arising from the import; and (b) such interpretation conforms to the principle of substantial taxation applicable to the Customs Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8442, Apr.

(B) The registrant of the domain name of this case on the Internet homepage of the shopping mall of this case, as above, is in the U.S. N. S., and the approval of the price for goods was made to the bank account in the name of Nonparty 1 (the owner of the N.S. N. D.) who is the owner of the N.S. N., and the fact that goods were purchased or taxes were paid in the U.S. Republic of Korea is recognized.

However, in light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s domestic business process; (b) the Plaintiff’s domestic sales of goods that were not returned to the U.S. Government without returning the books of account; (c) the Plaintiff used approximately KRW 1.3 billion for its domestic sales of goods; (d) the Plaintiff’s domestic sales of goods that were not returned to the U.S. government office’s domestic sales of goods; and (e) the Plaintiff’s domestic sales of goods that were not returned to the U.S. government office’s office’s domestic sales of goods that were not returned to the Plaintiff; and (e) the Plaintiff’s domestic sales of goods that were not returned to the U.S. government office’s office’s domestic sales of the goods that were not returned to the Plaintiff’s domestic sales of the goods; and (e) the Plaintiff’s domestic sales of the goods that were not returned to the Plaintiff’s office’s domestic sales of the goods that were not returned to the Plaintiff’s office’s domestic sales of the goods were deemed to have been used [the Plaintiff’s specific use of revenue].]

(3) Therefore, the disposition of this case where the Plaintiff deemed the operator of the shopping mall of this case and imposed customs duties, etc. on the Plaintiff is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judge Cho Jin-hun (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-hun