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. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are entrepreneurs engaged in the business of filling and selling liquefied petroleum gas for vehicle fuel.

Plaintiff

B From January 2010 to June 2012, Plaintiff A, from January 1 to January 2012, 2010 to January 2012, 201, after being released from a tank (lost gas transport container) in which B orders issued by each liquefied petroleum gas manufacturing and wholesale business entity were loaded into the tank in the tank (lost gas transport container) vehicle, after moving the tank glass vehicle into the professional wholesale business entity, and then being charged into the tank attached to the professional board wholesale business entity, and then shipping them out to its store tank and selling them to consumers as but for vehicle fuel.

B. From November 1, 2012 to November 20, 2012, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office confirmed the following facts against the Plaintiffs, and notified the Defendant that such an act constituted an act of manufacturing goods subject to individual consumption tax, deeming that the Plaintiffs’ act constitutes an act of manufacturing goods subject to individual consumption tax.

C. Accordingly, on July 11, 2013, the Defendant issued a separate notice of the imposition of KRW 58,732,840,000, which is the individual consumption tax and education tax (including individual consumption tax; hereinafter “individual consumption tax, etc.”) to Plaintiff B on the part of the Plaintiff’s automobile fuel sales, and the imposition of KRW 61,090,740,000, which is the aggregate of the individual consumption tax, etc. on July 8, 2013 and the individual consumption tax, etc. on July 11, 2013 to Plaintiff B.

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) D.

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on August 22, 2013, but all of them were dismissed on November 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs asserted that each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

The plaintiffs' assertion.