1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are entrepreneurs engaged in the wholesale and retail business of clothing in the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Square Market and the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Jung-gu Peace Market.

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, upon conducting a tax investigation on the O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”), deemed that the Plaintiffs failed to report the sales in cash and check, even though they received the sales proceeds in cash and check, and notified the Defendants of the pertinent taxation data.

C. Accordingly, the head of the final tax office issued a notice of rectification of the value-added tax as stated in the attached Table 1 (the head of the final tax office) as shown in the attached Table 2.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 16, 2013 and September 5, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-4, 6, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiffs are the parties directly exporting the clothing to Japan, and the O merely takes charge of purchase agency business, and it is necessary to recognize the application of zero tax rate to the plaintiffs pursuant to the substance over form principle under the Framework Act on National Taxes. 2) Even though the plaintiffs exported the clothing through O for 30 years or longer according to market practices, the defendants did not impose any tax only once, and the merchants who export the clothing to Japan to the same small-scale merchants as the plaintiffs have been glus in the East gate, the plaza, the new peace market, etc., and the exporters exported throughO are about 20 persons, but only about 50 persons including the plaintiffs, were the defendants violated the principle of equality or the principle of good faith.

B. Attached Form 3 of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes are written.