1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The date the Defendant’s disposition of this case’s main defense was made on March 10, 2012, and the Plaintiffs raised an objection at the night on June 15, 2017, and the objection was dismissed due to the time limit and time limit. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as the time limit for filing the lawsuit.

B. (1) Article 90 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes provides that an objection against the imposition of local taxes shall be filed within 90 days from the date of imposition.

Meanwhile, in a case where a revocation lawsuit is not filed without filing an administrative appeal within 90 days from the date on which a disposition is known, the period for filing the subsequent lawsuit is expired, and the subsequent lawsuit for revocation is illegal and illegal, and the subsequent lawsuit for revocation was filed within 90 days from the date on which a written ruling was served on the original disposition after a ruling on an illegal administrative appeal filed within 90 days from the date on which the disposition is known, and thus, the revocation lawsuit is not re-compliance with

(2) Therefore, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of each entry and pleading in the Health Control Group, Gap No. 1 and 5 (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du18786, Nov. 24, 201). (2), (i) Plaintiff A has a tax payment notice as of March 10, 2012; (ii) it is reasonable to deem that Plaintiff A became aware of the existence of the instant disposition; and (iii) the Plaintiffs are in a father-child relationship; and (iv) the Plaintiffs are deemed to have been aware of the instant disposition at the same time; and (iii) the Plaintiffs paid the tax amount based on the instant disposition based on the document used as a tax payment notice and a receipt as of March 28, 2012; and (iv) the Plaintiffs were deemed to have known of the instant disposition prior to March 28, 2012 based on lawful service, the Plaintiffs raised an objection by significantly imposing 90 days from the date of the instant disposition.