The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

The reasons stated in this part are as follows, except for the rejection of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2 Myeon 8 to 10 roads are as follows:

On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiffs registered a joint proprietor of a new sales business of housing with the trade name “E”, and constructed a building with the main usage as “business facilities (officetel)” on the ground of the Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City and two lots of land (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) with the construction permit granted from the competent authorities, and constructed a 1st floor above the ground level and 10th floor above the ground level, and sold the instant officetel registered as business facilities on the building ledger in the first taxable period of value added tax in 2015.

- - 3 - 1, 2 - as follows:

The reasoning of this part of the plaintiffs' assertion as to the legitimacy of the Disposition in this case is as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3 The following shall be added between 3 Myeon 13 and 14:

“The instant officetel does not constitute a national housing exempt from value added.”

Even if there was a conflict between the taxpayer and the taxation office in terms of the interpretation of the tax law, and it is unreasonable to expect that the conflict of opinion exceeds the simple scope of the tax-free person's land or misunderstanding, and thus, it is unreasonable to expect that the taxpayer should pay the value-added tax normally.