1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The defendant's lawsuit of this case disputing the legitimacy of the payment of stamp tax is subject to legal relations under the public law, and it shall be subject to the party's lawsuit under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and may be brought under the prior trial procedure pursuant to Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit without going through the prior trial procedure to the effect that it is in violation of jurisdiction.

Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act defines a party suit as “the lawsuit in respect of a legal relationship based on an administrative agency’s disposition or other legal relationship under public law, in which one party to the legal relationship is the defendant.”

The stamp tax is a tax obligation determined by the method of automatic determination without special procedures when the tax liability becomes effective (Article 22(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). The amount of tax paid in excess of the payable amount or paid in a non-taxable document is determined at the time of payment as there is no legal ground from the beginning, and thus, the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment has already been determined at the time of payment. It is not a disposition that specifically and directly affects the existence or scope of the right to claim the refund of the national tax refund or the decision

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Nu6436 delivered on June 15, 1989). The claim for the return of the amount of stamp tax overpaid or erroneously paid cannot be viewed as a lawsuit concerning the legal relationship based on the disposition, etc. of an administrative agency, or other legal relationship under public law, and it is the jurisdiction of civil litigation.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The primary Plaintiff’s primary assertion is that the existing credit card holders additionally request the issuance of a physical card between July 2007 and February 2011.