beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of
Part V of "Plaintiff D, E, F, G, H, I, J, P, R, U,V, W (limited to the value-added tax of 1 year 2008), S, T, and AC" in part 10 of attached Table 10 shall read "Plaintiff D, E, F, G, H, I, J, J, P, P, U,V, and W as to the imposition of the value-added tax of 1 year 2008 among the dispositions listed in attached Table 1."
Part 5 provides that "Plaintiff D, E, F, G, H, H, J, P, and R (as to the remainder of the disposition other than the value-added tax of 1 year 2008), A, B, C,K, L, M, N, P, P, and Q" shall read "Plaintiff D, E, F, G, H, I, J, J, P, and Q as to the remainder of the disposition other than the value-added tax of 1 year 2008 in the disposition of imposition of attached Table 1, respectively."
Part 5, "Plaintiff U, V, W, AB (as to the part remaining other than the value-added tax of 1 year 2008), X, Y, Z, and AA" are referred to as "Plaintiff U, V, W, and AB as for the remaining part other than the value-added tax of 1 year 2008 among the disposition of imposition of attached Table 1, the Plaintiff X,Y, Z, and AA as for the disposition of imposition of attached Table 1."
In the 7th page, the "witness" shall be the "witness of the first instance trial".
The following grounds are as follows: “Final Value-Added Tax was sought by the Seoul Administrative Court No. 2014Guhap66052 on October 21, 2016 for each of the value-added tax stated in [Attachment 1] No. 6 (limited to the first value-added tax in 2008), 9 (limited to the first value-added tax in 2008), 22 (limited to the first value-added tax in 2008), and 29, and the above court dismissed the above plaintiffs’ claim on October 21, 2016 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 8, 2016.”