1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. Among the lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff A, the court was added.

the circumstances of the disposition;

2. The reasoning of the judgment of this court in this part is as follows: (a) except that the court stated in this part as follows: (b) 3 pages 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the purchase was made,” and “the purchase was recorded as “the purchase was made;” and (c) it is identical to each corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) it is cited in accordance with Article 8(

3. Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. According to Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation against a disposition made under tax-related Acts shall not be filed without undergoing a request for evaluation or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon.

However, two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose in tax administration are carried out in the stage of phased development, and are related to each other.

In other words, in a case where the tax authority changed the taxation disposition subject to such tax disposition during the continuation of a tax litigation and the grounds for illegality are common, or where several persons are subject to the same tax disposition due to the same administrative disposition, one of the persons is given an opportunity for the National Tax Service and the National Tax Tribunal to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, and where there are justifiable grounds such as where it seems that it would be harsh for the taxpayer to go through the procedure of the preceding trial, it should be deemed that the taxpayer can file an administrative suit claiming the revocation of the taxation disposition even without going through the procedure of the preceding trial.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du25817 Decided May 28, 2009, etc.). We examine the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff received a request for examination or a request for trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes with respect to the imposition of tax on earned income stated in the claim by the Plaintiff B. Thus, we include the Defendant’s notification of change in the amount of income against the Plaintiff