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 judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of

(1) Parts 3, 7, and 9 each "Defendant" shall be deemed to be "the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea", and each "Defendant" in Parts 3, 13, and 4, 15, and 18 shall be deemed to be "the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea".

(2) The interval between pages 6 through 6 shall be as follows:

D. The revocation of the disposition imposing penalty tax against Plaintiff A, such as whether the disposition imposing penalty tax is lawful or not, is sufficient in a way that can objectively identify the intent of revocation without any specific form. If the tax authority imposed a penalty tax but imposed a new disposition premised on the revocation of the disposition, barring any special circumstance, it should be deemed that the initial disposition was revoked, barring any special circumstance.

(2) In light of the purport of the argument in the above evidence Nos. 1, 12, 13, and 8, 9, and 10, as a whole, the Plaintiff’s notice of imposition of additional tax on the gift tax on the date of December 4, 2012 at the first instance court, arguing that the notice of imposition of additional tax on the gift tax on the date of December 4, 2006 at the first instance court was unlawful because it did not state the type of additional tax and the basis for calculation of additional tax, etc., the Defendant Yangyang Tax Office newly issued a disposition imposing additional tax on the Plaintiff for the year 2006 upon the Plaintiff on April 23, 2015. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s initial application for imposition of additional tax on the gift tax on the date of supplementation of the above defect, thereby modifying the purport of the disposition to impose additional tax on the Plaintiff on the date of filing a claim with the court of the first instance on May 12, 2015.