영상물 방영권이 관세법상 재현생산권에 해당하는지 여부- 대법원 2020. 2. 27. 선고 2018두57599 판결[공2020상, 721] -

The Supreme Court judged that the license fee paid as consideration for the right to use the video broadcast was equivalent to the cost of using the reproducible production right, which cannot be included in the tax price of imported goods. I agree with the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, but it is hard to agree with the logical development. The ruling was based on the fact that the right to broadcast was the reproducible production right, and it was deemed that the price could not be added to the tax price. However, because the right to broadcast is in itself the right to reproduce images, it is not possible to incorporate the idea of reproducing the designs or creations inherent in imported goods into the concept of manufacturing new items that correspond to tangible movables. The judgment of the lower court is reasonable in this regard. It is clear that this interpretation differs from some foreign legislative practices or interpretations, but not only there are some other legislative exemples which are in line with that interpretation, but the Supreme Court's view is beyond the limits of the interpretation of the law. In particular, it is believed that the Supreme Court may be against the principles of strict interpretation, which is the general principle of the interpretation of tax laws. Rather, I think it would have been more logical to examine whether the price of the right to air is equivalent to the ‘royalty,’ an additional factor in the tax price, and then determine that it does not meet the requirements. In particular, considering the practice of transactions, it is difficult to say that the rights to broadcast are embodied in the master tape itself, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the price was paid for the immaterials of images that can be transmitted online, not master tape.