1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. The plaintiffs asserts that the service of the plaintiff company's employees or non-family members was invalid even though they could not receive each notice of tax payment for the first term of 2010, 2010, corporate tax for the plaintiff company's business year, 2010, and corporate tax for the business year 2010.

On the other hand, a notice of tax payment for a person detained in a detention house, etc. shall be served to his/her address, residence, place of business or office pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, unless there are special circumstances, unless there exist any provisions that apply mutatis mutandis under Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act or the provisions regarding service of the Civil Procedure Act, and a notice of tax payment for the person detained in a detention house, etc. may be served to his/her employee and other employees or a person living together with the person entitled to make reasonable judgment, if the person to receive the service is not present at the place of such case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460 Decided May 13, 2010, etc.). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 3 and Nos. 4 through 6 (including each number), Plaintiff B was detained on July 25, 201, and was confined to the Seoul detention center until July 24, 2012. The above written notice of tax payment can be acknowledged to have been served on Plaintiff B’s resident registration domicile, “In Incheon-dong E 101, a householder’s householder 101, who is a cohabitant.” In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiffs are each concerned.