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, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form), except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the following paragraph (3), and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The following is added to the 7th 10th 7th 10 of the revised portion 4th 4 parts to the "Incheon District Prosecutors' Office", and the decision of re-examination and dismissal is mixed with the decision of the Tax Tribunal's decision, so the plaintiffs could not be known that the subject matter of the customs litigation should be determined by each case of import declaration as each case of import declaration, and therefore, the subject matter of the customs litigation should not be determined by each case of import declaration. Therefore, the subject matter of the lawsuit is due to the reasons for which the plaintiffs cannot be held responsible for the subject matter ①

A revocation suit shall be instituted within 90 days after the disposition, etc. is known (main sentence of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act), and the period for filing the suit shall be a peremptory term (Article 20(3) of the same Act): Provided, That if the parties are unable to comply with it due to any cause not attributable to them, a lawsuit which has been neglected within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist pursuant to Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act which is applicable mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8 of the same Act can be subsequently completed. The reason why the parties cannot be held liable refers to the reason why the parties could not comply with the period even though they have exercised their general duty

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Du6916, May 8, 2001; 2007Du16875, Jun. 12, 2008). In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs’ assertion was in excess of the filing period due to reasons not attributable to the Plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

11. Does 11.