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 reasons for the reversal of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance are as follows: (a) the amendment of the first instance court’s 10 pages, 11 pages “wholly amended”; and (b) the reasons for the judgment of the first instance other than adding the judgment as to the matters alleged by the Plaintiffs in the trial as set forth in the following paragraph (2) are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance; (c) therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiffs A and B asserted that the above plaintiffs' dispositions against the above plaintiffs are unlawful, since they are not the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the above plaintiffs' businesses, if the plaintiff A and B were to be the physical facilities that are naturally used in the above plaintiffs' businesses, they should be deemed to be the above plaintiffs' businesses, and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the business place should impose value-added tax on the above plaintiffs.

Article 44 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "The head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment of national taxes shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of national taxes at the time of the disposition."

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 6, 15, and 33, Plaintiff A applied for registration of the business place of this case as of January 2, 2015 as of January 1, 2015, and on May 22, 2015, Plaintiff A transferred his/her business place to Dongdong-dong M building N in Soyang-si, the business place of this case as of February 10, 2012, and Plaintiff B applied for registration of the business place of this case as of February 1, 2012, and transferred the business place as of February 4, 2013, the business place of this case as of July 4, 2013, and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over Plaintiff A and B as of January 1, 2015, cannot be deemed to have violated the jurisdiction of this case.

Therefore, the above argument of the plaintiff A and B is without merit.

B. The Plaintiffs are justified in not imposing additional tax regarding the instant disposition.