1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

According to Articles 55(1) and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a person who is a secondary taxpayer and receives a notice of payment pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes has an objection to a notice of payment, he/she may institute an administrative litigation only through a request for examination or adjudgment under the same Act. In such cases, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be lawful, such as to comply with the request period. In such cases, where a request for examination or adjudgment is illegal due to the lapse of the period,

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091 delivered on June 25, 1991). Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a petition for adjudication must be filed within 90 days from the date (when a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) on which the relevant disposition is known.

However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 19, the notice date and the service date of each disposition of this case are the same as the notice Nos. 1 and the service details of each disposition of this case, and the plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the notice, has filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on Oct. 30, 2012 after the lapse of 90 days from the service date of each disposition of this case.

As a result, the part delivered to C among the service details of each of the dispositions of this case is that C is not related to the Plaintiff Company. As D is also an employee of the Plaintiff Company or a family member of the Plaintiff Company, and its address is not arbitrarily changed at C’s request, the Plaintiff asserts that all of the service details of each disposition of this case are illegal.

However, in full view of the evidence Nos. 3, 4-1, 2-2, and witness C’s testimony, C received a part of the written disposition against the Plaintiff Company as an employee in charge of the construction of the Plaintiff Company, and D received a part of the written disposition against the Plaintiffs, which was registered as a cohabitant at the time.