1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the plaintiffs' lawsuits in this case, the attached amount decreased.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

The following shall be added to the notice of imposition disposition at the end of the sixth:

The amount of 79,015, 251, 78, 251, 78, 651, 651, 615, 363, 255, 271 2,180, 472 △△△△△65, 199, 82, 82, 82, 593, 584 82,157, 220 △△△636, 364, 246, 367, 832, 832, 865, 863, 864, 205, 205, 205, 364, 205, 364, 365, 206, 365, 205, 368, 205, 205, 36364, 3686, 2964, 28636, 2964

2. In conclusion, the part seeking revocation of the amount reduced in the separate sheet among the plaintiffs' lawsuits in this case is unlawful and dismissed, and all of the remaining claims against the plaintiffs against the defendants should be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in the conclusion of the judgment (the judgment of the court of first instance was to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against the amount reduced in the above contents as it did not exist after revocation of the disposition for imposition due to omission of the details for correction of value-added tax, added in the separate sheet). Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.

After the closing of argument, the Plaintiff filed an application for resumption of argument with the statement of passbook that he/she remitted totaling KRW 1,450,000 to I on January 4, 2012, January 5, 2012, August 2, 2012, and November 27, 2012.

However, the depositee is not the plaintiffs but the court, and the date and amount of the above transfer shall be the plaintiff.