Invest KOREA

No. Food wastes under subparagraph 1 (d) of Article 2 of the Biogas Act do not include intermediately processed food wastes under subparagraph 2 of attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rules of the Wastes Control Act.

Under subparagraph 1 (d) of Article 2 of the Biogas Act, “food wastes among wastes under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Wastes Control Act” are prescribed as an organic waste resource. However, under subparagraph 1 of Article 2, it is stated that the term "wastes" means such materials as garbage, burnt refuse, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste alkali, and carcasses of animals, which have become no longer useful for human life or business activities, and Article 2-2 of the same Act regulates that detailed classification of wastes concerning the kinds and recycling types of wastes shall be prescribed by Ministerial Decree of Environment in consideration of the generation source, constituents, harmfulness, etc. of wastes, and subparagraph 2 of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act legislated as delegated by the Act stipulates “food wastes and treated food wastes (51-38)” as a subordinate category of ordinary industrial wastes, and the sub-subcategories are prescribed as food wastes (51-38-01), intermediately-processed food wastes (51-38-02), remnants from treated food wastes (51-28-03) and other remnants from treated food wastes (51-38-99). In this regard, it should be considered that according to the Wastes Control Act, food wastes and intermediately-processed food wastes are separate wastes, each with different classification numbers.

Also, in accordance with Article 14-3 (1) of the Wastes Control Act, a Special-Governing City Mayor, a Special Self-Governing Province Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall formulate and implement a plan to restrain the generation of food wastes, and shall annually uate the outcomes of implementation thereof, and Article 15-2 of the same Act stipulates the obligations to comply with rules prescribed by ordinance for restraining the generation of food wastes and properly treating such wastes. However, considering that Article 13 (1) of the same Act refers to “intermediately processed wastes” as wastes that are made readily recyclable in view of the principles of recycling wastes and matters to be observed under Article 13-2, intermediately-processed food wastes do not fall under food wastes which are subject to the formulation and implementation of a plan to restrain the generation of food wastes and the application of obligations under Article 15-2 of the Act, but should be considered wastes that are intermediately processed for the proper final treatment (recycling) according to a plan to restrain food waste generation. In other words, it will be appropriate to interpret that intermediately-processed food wastes should be classified separately from food wastes according to the Wastes Control Act.

Also, if we look at the legislative history of the Enforcement Rules of the Wastes Control Act, in subparagraph 2 of attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rules of the Wastes Control Act partially amended to Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment no. 595 on Mar. 3, 2015, 51-38-00 is newly inserted and “food wastes and treated food wastes” is added as a new classification number, and “food wastes (58-38-01)”, “intermediate wastes of food wastes (51-38-02), and “remnants from treated food wastes (51-28-03) and “other remnants from treated food wastes (51-38-04)” are prescribed as subordinate categories. This is to clearly classify wastes and assign new classification numbers in order to appropriately manage remnants generated in the process of recycling food wastes and remnants from treated food wastes, and “intermediate wastes of food wastes” was renamed to the currently used “intermediately-processed food wastes” in 51-38-02 of subparagraph 2 of attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rules of the Wastes Control Act partially amended to Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment no. 664. In this regard, “food wastes” and “intermediately-processed food wastes” under the Wastes Control Act should be interpreted as separate concepts that should be classified separately for the appropriate management of wastes.

In addition, the purpose of the Biogas Act is to promote the environment-friendly utilization of organic waste resources (Article 1), and Article 5 (1) of the Act obligates that public producers and private producers (hereafter “obligated producers of biogas”) shall establish and manage targets for biogas production every year. Also, Article 9 (1) of the Act prescribes that an obligated producer of biogas shall report the organic waste resources discharge volume, the organic waste resources treatment volume, and the biogas production volume to the Minister of Environment. As such, considering that organic waste resources discharge volume and biogas production volume are strictly managed, it shall be more appropriate to interpret that organic waste resources under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Act do not include intermediately-processed food wastes and only includes food wastes (raw materials) in a pre-processed state, given that it better conforms to the legislative purpose of the Act, which prescribes obligated producers of biogas and imposes various responsibilities to promote the utilization of organic waste resources.

Therefore, food wastes pursuant to subparagraph 1 (d) of Article 2 of the Biogas Act do not include intermediately-processed food wastes under 51-38-02 of subparagraph 2 of attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rules of the Wastes Control Act.

Yes. Acid treatment facilities among semiconductor manufacturing facilities fall under acid treatment facilities that are emission facilities to which an automatic smokestack measuring device should be attached pursuant to Article 17 (5) and subparagraph 1 ( r) 4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Clean Air Conservation Act.

In subparagraph 1 of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Clean Air Conservation Act, item (r) of the same subparagraph prescribes manufacturing facilities such as facilities for assembled metal products, and item (r) 6) classifies deposition facilities and etching facilities among semiconductor and other electronic parts manufacturing facilities. In this regard, it should be considered that manufacturing facilities such as facilities for assembled metal products include semiconductors and other electronic parts manufacturing facilities. However, it is stipulated that deposition facilities and etching facilities under item (r) 6) fall under emission facilities subject to attachment of automatic smokestack measuring device, but acid treatment facilities under item (r) 4) are not limited to semiconductors and other electronic parts manufacturing facilities, so it should be regarded that acid treatment facilities among manufacturing facilities of all assembled metal products including semiconductor and other electronic parts manufacturing facilities. Therefore, acid treatment facilities among semiconductor manufacturing facilities should also be considered acid treatment facilities subject to attachment of automatic smokestack measuring device in accordance with subparagraph 1 (r) of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Clean Air Conservation Act.

The purpose of the Clean Air Conservation Act is to enable all people to live in a healthy and comfortable environment, by preventing air pollution which causes harm to people and the environment, and by managing and conserving the atmospheric environment in a proper and sustainable manner (Article 1). And the purpose of the obligation to attach automatic smokestack measuring device is to manage and check the pollutants emitted from the emission outlets (smokestacks) of an emission facility in real-time so that air pollution accidents can be prevented and the transparency in pollutant management can be ensured. Also, it is obligated to attach automatic smokestack measuring devices in the acid treatment facilities of facilities for manufacturing all assembled metal products, etc. Considering such points, it shall be proper based on the regulations to regard that acid treatment facilities among semiconductor manufacturing facilities fall under acid treatment facilities of manufacturing facilities of assembled metal products, etc., and are therefore subject to attachment of automatic smokestack measuring devices.

Meanwhile, in subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Clean Air Conservation Act and attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act legislated as delegated by the Act, emission facilities are specifically categorized. In subparagraph 2 (b) 1) through 37) of the Table, emission facilities and applicable emission facilities are categorized, and item 24) stipulates metal processing products, machinery, devices, equipment, transportation device, and furniture manufacturing facilities, and item 28) prescribes semiconductor manufacturing facilities. With respect to the classification system of emission facilities in attached Table 3, there are arguments that manufacturing facilities for assembled metal products, etc. in subparagraph 1 (r) of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Clean Air Conservation Act do not include semiconductor manufacturing facilities based on the classification system of emissions facilities in attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Rules of the Clean Air Conservation Act, but considering the fact that emission facilities and emission facilities subject to attachment of automatic smokestack measuring device are two separate items and do not have to match the emission facility classification system, the argument is not valid.

Therefore, acid treatment facilities among semiconductor manufacturing facilities fall under acid treatment facilities which are emission facilities subject to attachment of automatic smokestack measuring device pursuant to Article 17 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Clean Air Conservation Act and subparagraph 1 (r) 4) of its attached Table 3.

In this case, Article 39 (1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and note 1 of attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act apply, requiring the performance of self-measurement at least twice a month

Article 39 of the Clean Air Conservation Act prescribes that while a business entity operates emission facilities, he or she shall perform a self-measurement of pollutants emitted or have a measuring agency designated under Article 16 of the Environmental Testing and Inspection Act perform a measurement, and record the results thereof as they are and retain them, as prescribed by Ministerial Decree of Environment (Paragraph 1), and also stipulates that the subjects, items, and methods of measurement and other matters necessary for measurement shall be prescribed by Ministerial Decree of Environment (paragraph 4). And under Article 52 (5) and attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the Clean Air Conservation Act legislated as entrusted by the Act, the subjects, items and methods of self-measurement are stipulated, and subparagraph 2 (a) of the same Table prescribes that the number of measurements for class 3 emission outlets shall be at least once per two months, and the measurement items shall be pollutants (excluding fugitive dust among air pollutants) to which the permissible emission levels pursuant to attached Table 8 applies. In addition, subparagraph 1 of attached Table 11 regulates that where the volume of specified hazardous air pollutants emitted from class 3 to 5 emission outlets is no less than the standards prescribed in attached Table 8-2 of the same Rules, self-measurement should be performed for the relevant pollutant at least twice a month, notwithstanding the above Table. And attached Table 8-2 of the same Rules which prescribes the permissible emission level standards applied to specified hazardous air pollutants emitting facilities subject to permission of installation states that the permissible concentration applied to acetaldehydes is 0.01 ppm.

At the same time, Article 16 (1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act regulates that the standards for the permissible emission level for air pollutants from emission facilities shall be prescribed by the Ministerial Decree of Environment, and Article 15 and attached Table 8 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act legislated as entrusted by the Act stipulates the permissible emission level of air pollutants and subparagraph 2 (a) 1 of the same Table regulates that for acetaldehydes, emission facilities are classified as “manufacturing facilities for petroleum and storage facilities for related products, manufacturing facilities for basic organic compounds, wastewater, waste and waste gas incineration facilities, manufacturing facilities for solid and other fuel products”, and the permissible emission level shall be “no more than 10 ppm”.

As such, even if an emission facility is not subject to the permissible emission standards under attached Table 8 of the same Rules, if an emission facility that is equipped with a class 3 emission outlet under subparagraph 2 (a) of attached Table 11 of the same Rules emits the specified hazardous air pollutant acetaldehyde of 0.01 ppm or more, note 1 of the attached Table 11 shall apply, requiring that a self-measurement be performed for the relevant pollutant at least twice a month.

Also, according to subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, the term "specified hazardous air pollutant" means matter prescribed by Ministerial Decree of Environment among air pollutants subject to watch for hazard, which is acknowledged to require emission control, because it could inflect any harm or injury directly or indirectly on people's health or on the birth and breeding of animals and plants through long-term intake or exposure even if in low concentration. And under Article 23 (8) of the same Act, If the Minister of Environment or the Mayor/Do Governor deems that specified air pollutants emitted from emission make it impracticable to maintain the Environmental Quality Standards or are likely to cause serious harm to the health and property of residents and the birth and breeding of animals and plants, he or she may restrict the installation of emission facilities which emit specified air pollutants. In this regard, specified air pollutants are air pollutants that can harm people or animals and plants, and are managed more strictly than other air pollutants, so even if an emissions facility is not subject to attached Table 8 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act, class 3 emission outlets of emission facilities that emit specified hazardous air pollutants exceeding a certain level shall be considered to be subject to note 1 of attached Table 11 of the Rules and thus be managed in a strict manner.

Therefore, in this case, Article 39 (1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act and note 1 of attached Table 11 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act apply, and self-measurement should be performed at least twice a month.

If an employee did not attend work on a weekday that falls on a public holiday, it cannot be deemed that the employee did not show “perfect attendance” under Article 30 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. In this regard, the said employee is not excluded from persons who are granted paid holidays under Article 55 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.

The requirement to be guaranteed paid holidays pursuant to Article 55 (1) of the Labor Standards Act is that an employee should show perfect attendance of the contractual working days during one week, and “perfect attendance” under Article 30 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act should be interpreted as attendance or work on all contractual working days, meaning that an employee does not miss work on all contractual working days. However, “contractual working days during one week” under Article 30 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act presupposes that the days are days on which an employee has the responsibility to provide labor. In this regard, “contractual working days during one week” does not include public holidays, so an employee’s failure to attend work on a public holiday that falls on a weekday cannot be considered absence. Also, if the employee attended or worked on all other contractual working days that is not a public holiday during one week, it shall be considered that the employee has showed perfect attendance during the week, and it is fair to interpret that he/she should be granted paid holidays under Article 55 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.

In conclusion, if an employee did not attend work on a weekday that falls on a public holiday, it cannot be deemed that the employee did not show “perfect attendance” under Article 30 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. In this regard, the said employee is not excluded from persons who are granted paid holidays under Article 55 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.

Yes. If the seller of domestically produced goods, etc. marks the country of origin of domestically produced goods, etc. exempt from the assessment of origin standards as Korea, it constitutes a prohibited act under the subparagraph of Article 33 (4) 1 of the Foreign Trade Act.

Under Article 33 (4) 1 of the Foreign Trade Act, the act of marking a false origin or labelling any misleading mark or origin is prohibited, and Article 35 (3) of the same Act prescribes that Articles 33 (4) 1 and 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis to sellers of domestically produced goods, etc. Also, under the same Act, it is not prescribed that the applicability of Article 33 (4) 1 shall be decided based on whether domestically produced goods are subject to assessment of origin standards or not. In this regard, it can be said that marking the country of origin of domestically produced goods, etc. exempt from assessment of origin standards as Korea constitutes an act prohibited by Article 33 (4) 1 of the Foreign Trade Act, such as the act of marking a false origin or labelling any misleading mark or origin.

Also, the marking of origin scheme prescribed by Article 33 of the Foreign Trade Act, etc. was introduced to protect domestic consumers and to establish fair trade order as the false marking of the origin of imported goods as Korea caused harm to consumers. Also, with the partial amendment of the Foreign Trade Act into Act no. 18885 on June 10, 2022, Article 35 (3) was newly inserted to establish the order in trade of domestically produced goods using imported material by clarifying the legal basis for restricting violations against the rules on marking of origin. In this regard, when the country of origin of domestically produced goods, etc. exempt from assessment of origin standards is marked as Korea, it shall be appropriate to interpret that Article 33 (4) 1 of the Foreign Trade Act shall apply.

Therefore, the act of marking the country of origin of domestically produced goods, etc. exempt from assessment of origin standards as Korea constitutes an act prohibited under Article 33 (4) 1 of the Foreign Trade Act.

No. A special purpose company for urban development project that is the implementer of an urban development project cannot lease or sell land it acquired through an urban development project to a foreign-invested company, etc. by a negotiated contract pursuant to Article 13 (1) or Article 13-3 (1) of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act.

Under Article 13 (1) or Article 13-3 (1) of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act, the entities that can lease or sell land, etc. owned by the State, etc. to a foreign-invested company by a negotiated contract are restrictively listed as the Minister of Economy and Finance, the head of a central government agency that manages state property, the head of a local government, the head of a public institution, or the head of a local public enterprise under the Local Public Enterprises Act, and a special purpose company for urban development project is not included. In this regard, it is clear pursuant to the legal text that a special purpose company for an urban development project cannot be an entity that can lease or sell land to a foreign-invested company, etc. by a negotiated contract pursuant to the Foreign Investment Promotion Act. Also, the scope of the entities that can enter into a negotiated contract pursuant to Article 13 (1) and Article 13-3 (1) of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act should be interpreted strictly, so it is not appropriate to interpret that a special purpose company for an urban development project can lease or sell such land by a negotiated contract without a clause that specifically prescribes so.

Therefore, a special purpose company that is the implementer of an urban development project cannot lease or sell land acquired through an urban development project to a foreign-invested company, etc. by a negotiated contract pursuant to Article 13 (1) or Article 13-3 (1) of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act.

In a place of work that implements a selective work hour system, if a pregnant employee works in excess of the work hours prescribed by Article 50 (2) of the Labor Standards Act (eight hours per day) on a specific day, it is deemed “overtime work” prohibited for pregnant employees in accordance with Article 74 (5) of the same Act.

Under Article 74 (5) of the Labor Standards Act, it is prescribed that no employer shall order a female employee in pregnancy to engage in overtime work. It is considered that the purpose of this is to restrict excessive work placing physical and mental burden on the health of the pregnant employee and her fetus. Considering the fact that the regulation prohibits the overtime work of pregnant workers while not providing any exceptions, it should be deemed that prohibition of overtime work for pregnant employees shall apply identically to all pregnant employees regardless of the personal circumstances or intention of pregnant employees. Also, Article 74 (5) of the Labor Standards Act should be regarded as prohibiting work hours exceeding the statutory work hours (eight hours per day, 40 hours per week) regardless of whether or not contractual work hours or selective work hour system applies.

Also, the selective work hour system and the regulations on maternity protection are separate regulations with different legislative purposes. And in addition, if it is assumed that a pregnant employee in a place of business implementing selective work hours is permitted to work long and irregular hours, it shall be in violation of the legislative purpose of the regulation for protection of maternity which is to protect the health of the pregnant employees and her fetus. Considering such points, “overtime work” should be deemed “work in excess of the statutory work hours according to Article 50 (1) and (2) of the Act” regardless of whether the selective work hour system applies.

Therefore, if a pregnant employee in a place of work implementing the selective work hour system works in excess of the work hours prescribed by Article 50 (2) of the Labor Standards Act (eight hours per day) on a specific day, it constitutes “overtime work” prohibited for pregnant employees pursuant to Article 74 (5) of the same Act.

Where an approval for change was obtained after obtaining an initial approval pursuant to the main sentence of Article 13 (1) of the Industrial Cluster Act, “the day on which four years have passed since obtaining approval for factory establishment, etc.” shall be deemed “the day on which four years have passed since obtaining approval for change”.

Under the main sentence of Article 13 (1) of the Industrial Cluster Act, a person who intends to construct a new factory or extend one or to alter the type of industry or a factory (hereafter “factory establishment, etc.), the construction area of which is at least 500 m2 shall obtain approval from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the same shall also apply where he or she intends to alter any approved matters.

In addition, in the main sentence of Article 13-5 of the Act excluding its subparagraphs and in subparagraph 3 of the same Article, it is prescribed that the mayor, etc. may order the revocation of approval of factory establishment, etc. where it is deemed difficult to implement a project for the reason that a person who obtained approval for factory establishment, etc. pursuant to Article 13 of the same Act has not completed report (hereafter “report of completion of factory establishment, etc.”) pursuant to Article 15 (1) of the same Act until the date on which four years have passed. In the main sentence of Article 13 (1) and Article 13-2 (1) of the Industrial Cluster Act, it is prescribed that the “approval” of the mayor, etc. is needed when intending to establish a factory and when intending to change the approved matters, and it does not distinguish the concept of “initial approval” and “approval for change”, and also, it is prescribed that “when approving factory establishment, etc.”, it shall be deemed that matters that the mayor, etc. negotiated with the head of the relevant administrative agency shall be deemed to have obtained approval or permission (deemed approval and permission). In this regard, deemed approval and permission also applies to “approval for change” in which approved matters are changed, in addition to “initial approval” of factory establishment, etc. Another point is that Article 15 (1) of the same Act prescribes that a person who obtained “factory establishment approval, etc. pursuant to Article 13 (1)” should report completion of factory establishment, etc. when he/she completed factory construction. As such, when “approval for change” was obtained after obtaining “initial approval”, the time when factory construction was completed shall mean “when factory construction is completed according to the matters reflecting the approval for change”. Considering such points, it will be conforming to the regulations of the Industrial Cluster Act to conclude that “approval of factory establishment, etc.” includes “approval for change”.

The main sentence of Article 13-5 of the Act excluding its subparagraphs prescribes that revocation of the approval of factory establishment, etc. is possible when the person who obtained approval for factory establishment, etc. deems it difficult to implement the project due to any of the causes under its subparagraphs, and does not limit the meaning of “factory establishment, etc.” to “initial approval”. So such as in this case, where approval for change was obtained after obtaining initial approval, it shall be reasonable to deem that “the day on which four years have passed since obtaining approval for factory establishment, etc.” shall be the day on which four years have passed since obtaining the “approval for change”, not the “initial approval”.

Therefore, if approval for change was obtained after initial approval was obtained pursuant to the main sentence of Article 13 (1) of the Industrial Cluster Act, “the day on which four years have passed after obtaining approval of factory establishment, etc.” shall be “the day on which four years have passed after obtaining approval for change”.

Because a dormitory in this case falls under a dormitory under subparagraph 2 (d) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, it is subject to application of the dormitory construction standards designated and publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as delegated by the same subparagraph.



According to Article 2 (2) of the Building Act and Article 3-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and subparagraph 2 (d) 1 of its attached Table 1, dormitories are classified as a sub-category of a multi-family housing according to its use, and “general dormitories”, which is a sub-category of dormitories, is defined as a building used for the students or employees of a school or factory, etc. with the units using the dormitory’s shared cooking facilities accounting for at least 50% of the total units. Also, the building standards for dormitories are prescribed under the “building standards for dormitories (Public notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport no. 2023-151)”. In this regard, if a dormitory in this case falls under a dormitory under subparagraph 2 (d) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, it should comply with the “building standards for dormitories”

According to related laws such as the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereafter “Industrial Cluster Act”), dormitories built inside a factory site for the welfare of manufacturing employees are prescribed as one of the ancillary facilities included in the scope of a factory. And dormitories as ancillary facilities included in the scope of a factory pursuant to the Industrial Cluster Act fall are used for “subsidiary use” under subparagraph 13 (d) of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and subparagraph 2 (d) 1 of attached Table 1 of the same Enforcement Decree prescribes general dormitories as “building used for the employees of a factory, etc.” regardless of whether its use is for the main use of the building or the subsidiary use of a building. Consequently, since dormitories in this case fall under general dormitories under subparagraph 2 (d) 1 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the building Act, it can be said that the “building standards for dormitories” prescribed and publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Transport and Infrastructure as delegated by the same subparagraph shall apply to the structure and size of the space.

The Building Act prescribes that dormitories should meet the “building standards for dormitories” in order to reflect the characteristics of dormitories and make them comply with the building standards necessary for safety, hygiene and fire prevention so that the pleasant and safe living environment can be provided for dormitory users. Also, the Industrial Cluster Act prescribes that dormitories built inside a manufacturing factory site for the welfare of employees shall be included in the scope of a factory so that a dormitory can be built within the factory site as an ancillary facility to a factory under the same Act for the welfare of employees, and it is not for the purpose of excluding the application of the regulations on the structure and facility standards and use. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that dormitories in this case, which are general dormitories under the Building Act, are subject to subparagraph 2 (d) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and the “building standards for dormitories” as delegated under the same subparagraph also apply.

In conclusion, dormitories in this case are dormitories under subparagraph 2 (d) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and are subject to the “building standards for dormitories” prescribed and publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Transport and Industry as delegated by the same subparagraph.

No. Parts and raw materials for military aircraft are not excluded from the scope of goods for which customs duties are reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 89 (6) 1 of the Customs Act

Article 89 of the Customs Act prescribes the matters related to the reduction and exemption of customs duties for resolving uneven tariff rates in order to support the manufacture of products subject to relatively low tariff rates for finished products and high tariff rates for parts and raw materials. In the same Article, customs duties reduction and exemption for “parts and raw materials” used for the manufacture or repair of “aircraft” apply differently depending on whether they are used by a “small or medium enterprise” (paragraph 1) or “a person who is not a small or medium enterprise” (paragraph 6). And under paragraph 6 of the same Article, “parts and raw materials” used to manufacture or repair goods referred to in paragraph (1) 1 are eligible for customs duties reduction or exemption, and the goods are prescribed as “aircraft” under paragraph (1) 1 of the same Article. In addition, Article 35 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act delegated by the parts excluding the subparagraphs of paragraph 1 of the same Article stipulates that “parts and raw materials” imported by an aircraft manufacturer or repairer for the manufacture or repair of “aircraft” are eligible for customs duties reduction or exemption. As such, “aircrafts” are not limited to ”civil aircrafts” for which “parts and raw materials” are used.

If so, it can be said that “goods under paragraph (1) 1” in the parts excluding the subparagraphs of Article 89 (6) of the Customs Act which prescribes matters on the reduction or exemption of customs duties for goods subject to uneven tariff rates means “all aircraft including military aircraft”, so the parts excluding the subparagraphs of the paragraph of the same Article means that “customs duties shall be reduced or exempted as prescribed by each subparagraph of the same paragraph for “parts and raw materials” used to manufacture or repair all aircraft including military aircraft at a designated factory by a person who is not a small or medium enterprise, and subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph stipulates the scope of “parts and raw materials” as “goods prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Economy and Finance among goods subject to the Annex 4 Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization”. Also, Attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act which was delegated by the Act only states the list of the specific product names of “parts and raw materials” used to manufacture or repair aircraft and does not restrict the scope of “aircraft” for which parts and raw materials are used. In this regard, it will be reasonable to interpret that parts and raw materials for military aircraft are included in “goods prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Economy and Finance among goods subject to the Annex 4 Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization” which are eligible for reduction or exemption of customs duties pursuant to Article 89 (6) 1 of the same Act. Therefore, it can be concluded that parts and raw materials for military aircraft are considered goods for which customs duties are reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 89 (6) 1 of the Customs Act.