Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
A justifiable ground where a freight change left the customs declaration without fault
Supreme Court, Dec. 1, 2022, 2020Du49539 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 가산세면제신청거부처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where Korea Gas Corporation, after a change agreement with its carrier, included capital costs twice a year in the freight of particular voyages rather than apportioning them across every voyage, was the customs superintendent's refusal to exempt the resulting surcharge unlawful because the declarations contained no error and broke no duty to declare and pay customs duty and value-added tax?
Holding
It was. The change agreement of 15 January 2010 altered the voyage-by-voyage freight set in the carriage contract itself, so the declaration that reflected the altered freight contained no error. Because Korea Gas Corporation had broken no duty to declare and pay customs duty and value-added tax, that fact alone supplied a justifiable ground within Article 39(2)(v) of the former Customs Act Enforcement Decree, which cannot be charged with neglecting the duty, and the refusal to exempt the surcharge was unlawful.
Points at issue, verbatim
그 자체로 한국가스공사에 관세 및 부가가치세의 신고·납부의무를 게을리한 점을 비난할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있으므로, 위 처분이 위법하다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
inasmuch as there was, in itself, justifiable ground that could not blame Korea Gas Corporation for neglecting its obligation to declare and pay customs duties and value-added tax, the court below's determination that the above disposition was unlawful is a case in point
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
원심의 이러한 판단에 상고이유 주장과 같이 가산세 면제신청 사유, 처분문서의 해석 및 관세법상 수입가격 평가에 관한 법리를 오해한 잘못이 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The court below's determination as above contains no error of legal principle, such as misunderstanding of the grounds for application for exemption from the additional tax, interpretation of the written disposition, or valuation of the import price under the Customs Act, as asserted in the grounds for final appeal.
Factors
- 한국가스공사가 변경합의에 따라 변경된 운임을 반영하여 한 신고에 어떠한 잘못이 없고
- 관세 및 부가가치세의 신고·납부의무를 위반한 사실이 없는 이상
- 그 자체로 한국가스공사에 관세 및 부가가치세의 신고·납부의무를 게을리한 점을 비난할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있으므로
- 종전 방식대로 재산정한 후 수입신고에 관하여 관세 및 부가가치세를 수정신고·납부하고 부족세액에 대한 가산세를 납부한 후
Unofficial English translation
• there was nothing wrong with the declarations filed by Korea Gas Corporation reflecting the changed freight rates in accordance with the amendment agreement, and
• inasmuch as there was no fact of violating the obligation to declare and pay customs duties and value-added tax,
• there was, in itself, justifiable ground that could not blame Korea Gas Corporation for neglecting its obligation to declare and pay customs duties and value-added tax, and therefore
• after recalculating them in the previous manner, filing amended declarations and paying the customs duties and value-added tax with respect to the import declarations, and paying the additional tax on the deficient tax amount,
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the freight structure had been adopted mainly to reduce or defer the tax burden rather than to remove a period of interest benefit for the carrier, would the declaration still be free of fault for the purposes of the justifiable ground?
A later decision applying the import price evaluation rules of the Customs Act to freight structures of this kind differently would call for this entry to be read again. So would any amendment to Article 39(2)(v) of the Customs Act Enforcement Decree, or the application of the Decree as amended on 11 February 2020 to the declarations concerned.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the freight structure had been adopted mainly to reduce or defer the tax burden rather than to remove a period of interest benefit for the carrier, would the declaration still be free of fault for the purposes of the justifiable ground?” vs Independent “How should freight costs be allocated for customs valuation if an agreement changes only the payment schedule without changing the freight charges themselves?”
The primary reading asks whether a freight structure aimed mainly at tax reduction would still count as fault-free, while the independent reading asks how freight should be allocated for valuation when only payment timing changes.
그 자체로 한국가스공사에 관세 및 부가가치세의 신고·납부의무를 게을리한 점을 비난할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있으므로, 위 처분이 위법하다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Suwon High Court, in its judgment of 26 August 2020 (2020Nu10339), held that the voyage-by-voyage freight set in the carriage contract had itself been changed by the change agreement, so Korea Gas Corporation's declaration under the changed freight contained no error. It then held that, since the company had broken no duty to declare and pay customs duty and value-added tax, that fact alone gave it a justifiable ground which could not be charged with neglecting the duty, and that the defendants' refusal to exempt the surcharge was unlawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that reasoning. Reading the appellate reasons against the provisions and legal principles, it held that the court below had not misunderstood the law on the grounds for exempting a surcharge, on the construction of the decision documents, or on the evaluation of import prices under the Customs Act, and dismissed all the defendants' appeals with the concurrence of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A declaration that in fact contained an error in the import price or in the apportionment of the freight, since the Court's reasoning rests on the declaration having no fault at all.
- A taxpayer that in fact breached the duty to declare and pay customs duty or value-added tax, so that the fact of no breach cannot supply the justifiable ground.
- A refusal grounded on a provision other than Article 39(2)(v) of the former Customs Act Enforcement Decree, since the decision addressed only the ground of a justifiable reason for the shortfall.
Record verification notes
Set the carriage contract of 29 October 2008 and the change agreement of 15 January 2010 against the freight actually declared for each of the 197 import declarations for which amended declarations and payment were filed between 14 September 2017 and 13 October 2017, and confirm the corrected declarations and the surcharge paid. Then read each refusal decision of 28 February to 22 March 2018 on its own terms, and check which version of the Customs Act and its Enforcement Decree, the one before the amendments of 31 December 2018 and 11 February 2020, applied to the declarations at issue.
From the official text
Points at issue
한국가스공사가 수송자인 갑 주식회사와 체결한 운송계약에 따라 액화천연가스의 수입신고 시 자본비를 포함한 운임구성요소를 각 선적수량에 따라 안분하여 산정한 항차별 운임을 반영하여 가격신고 및 납세신고를 해오다가, 한국가스공사와 갑 회사가 운임구성요소 중 자본비는 갑 회사가 이를 금융단에 상환하는 시점의 직전 항차 또는 그전 항차에 일시에 지급하기로 변경합의를 함에 따라 이후 한국가스공사가 액화천연가스의 수입신고를 하면서 자본비를 연 2회 특정 항차의 운임에만 포함하여 가격신고 및 납세신고를 하던 중, 세관으로부터 자본비를 안분하여 항차별 운임에 포함하지 않고 특정 항차의 운임에 일괄하여 포함한 것은 잘못이라는 지적을 받아, 종전 방식대로 재산정한 후 수입신고에 관하여 관세 및 부가가치세를 수정신고·납부하고 부족세액에 대한 가산세를 납부한 후 관할 세관장에게 가산세를 면제하여 달라는 신청을 하였으나, 관할 세관장이 구 관세법 시행령 제39조 제2항 제5호가 정한 가산세 면제사유인 ‘신고납부한 세액의 부족 등에 대하여 납세의무자에게 정당한 사유가 있는 경우’에 해당하지 않는다는 이유로 이를 거부한 사안에서, 한국가스공사가 변경합의에 따라 변경된 운임을 반영하여 한 신고에 어떠한 잘못이 없고, 관세 및 부가가치세의 신고·납부의무를 위반한 사실이 없는 이상, 그 자체로 한국가스공사에 관세 및 부가가치세의 신고·납부의무를 게을리한 점을 비난할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있으므로, 위 처분이 위법하다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
This case concerns the following circumstances. Korea Gas Corporation, in accordance with a transportation contract executed with Company A, the carrier, had, upon filing import declarations for liquefied natural gas, declared the price and paid the taxes by reflecting the voyage-specific freight rates calculated by allocating the freight rate components, including capital costs, pro rata to the quantity shipped in each loading; subsequently, upon an amendment agreement between Korea Gas Corporation and Company A to the effect that, among the freight rate components, capital costs would be paid in a lump sum on the voyage immediately preceding, or the voyage before that, the time when Company A repays them to the financing syndicate, Korea Gas Corporation, when filing import declarations for liquefied natural gas, included the capital costs in the freight of only two specified voyages per year when declaring the price and paying the taxes; it was then pointed out by the customs office that it was wrong to fail to allocate the capital costs and include them in the voyage-specific freight rates, and instead to include them in a lump sum in the freight of specified voyages; accordingly, Korea Gas Corporation recalculated them in the previous manner, filed amended declarations and paid the customs duties and value-added tax with respect to the import declarations, paid the additional tax on the deficient tax amount, and then filed an application with the competent head of the Customs Office requesting exemption from the additional tax, but the competent head of the Customs Office refused the application on the ground that it did not fall under 'cases where the taxpayer has justifiable grounds for the deficiency, etc. of the tax amount declared and paid,' which is a ground for exemption from the additional tax as provided in subparagraph 5 of Article 39 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act. In this case, holding that, inasmuch as there was nothing wrong with the declarations filed by Korea Gas Corporation reflecting the changed freight rates in accordance with the amendment agreement, and inasmuch as there was no fact of violating the obligation to declare and pay customs duties and value-added tax, there was, in itself, justifiable ground that could not blame Korea Gas Corporation for neglecting its obligation to declare and pay customs duties and value-added tax, and therefore the above disposition was unlawful, the court below's determination on this point, which was affirmed, is a case in point.
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Provisions referred to
구 관세법(2018. 12. 31. 법률 제16093호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제16조, 제27조, 제28조 제1항, 제2항, 제30조 제1항 제6호, 제38조 제1항, 제38조의2 제5항 제2호, 제38조의3 제1항, 제2항, 제42조 제1항, 구 관세법 시행령(2020. 2. 11. 대통령령 제30399호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제16조 제1항 제2호, 제3항, 제20조 제1항, 제2항, 제32조의4 제5항, 제33조, 제39조 제2항 제5호, 제5항, 국세기본법 제48조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger