1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 18, 2002, the Plaintiffs established a mutual company called “D” in the Gyeyang-do Yang-gun C, Gyeonggi-do, and thereafter built the first basement in the name of “F” in Seoul Northern-gu, Seoul, and the third floor reinforced concrete apartment house in the size of the ground (hereinafter “non-building house”) on July 16, 2003, and sold 19 households from December 29, 2004 to March 2, 2007, and reported the value-added tax on the Defendant from February 2, 2004 to January 2, 2007.

B. After confirming the sales price of housing as stated in the court decisions, etc. in accordance with civil litigation between the plaintiffs and the purchaser, the defendant deemed that the plaintiffs underreported the sales price of 14 households among the apartment houses of the above 19 households (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "multi-family houses of this case") for the said 19 households, and notified the plaintiffs on October 1, 2013 of value-added tax 19,382,650, value-added tax for the second term of 2004, value-added tax 11,129,420, value-added tax for the first term of 205, value-added tax for 12,265,740, value-added tax for the second term of 205, value-added tax for 58,976,250, and value-added tax for the first term of 206 and value-added tax for 11,007,690 each.

(hereinafter referred to as "total of them") of this case. (c)

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on December 17, 2013, but the appeal was dismissed on November 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 8-1 through 19, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion 1 is as follows: (a) the plaintiffs suffered difficulties in repaying their debts due to low performance in the new construction and sale of a row house, and were inevitably demanded from the buyers to reduce the purchase price, and (b) cancel or cancel the existing sales contract on the housing at issue of this case and lower the purchase price so as to lower the purchase price.