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 citing the reasoning of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiffs added the judgment on the allegations that were newly raised by the court of first instance as to this case, as stated in paragraph (2) above, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Determination as to the additional argument

A. In the event that D does not pay the property tax belonging to year 2013 to 2016 by the respective payment deadline, the Defendant alleged that D was liable to impose penalty tax immediately on the Plaintiffs, and where the Plaintiffs did not pay the property tax by the payment deadline, penalty tax should be imposed.

Even if it is not so, the defendant should have confirmed D's insolvency and imposed a disposition immediately against the plaintiffs to prevent the expansion of additional taxes or additional dues.

Nevertheless, the defendant made the instant disposition against the plaintiffs during June 2018 from the time D's delay in payment due date to July 2018. The part of the penalty tax and additional dues among the instant disposition is unreasonable.

B. As long as a notice of payment to the secondary taxpayer was given within the exclusion period of imposition, such notice of payment is legitimate unless there are special circumstances.

Unlike this, the obligation to issue a payment notice to the second taxpayer immediately upon the occurrence of the arrears of the first taxpayer cannot be deemed to be the defendant.

On a different premise, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.