The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant tax disposition cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s refusal to receive documents, such as the instant tax notice, or the Plaintiff’s domicile was not clear; and (b) the Plaintiff’s remaining tax disposition did not have any reason to serve the remaining tax disposition by public notice, on the ground that the Plaintiff had no other return data; (c) the Defendant’s computerized data owned tax items, tax amount, date of imposition, and payment date; and (d) the Plaintiff did not raise any objection in the subsequent public sale or distribution procedure, while residing in the same domicile until now after the lapse of the preservation period of the instant tax disposition; and (d) the Defendant did not have any reason to serve the tax notice by public notice on the grounds that the remaining tax disposition was lawfully served on the Plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just because it cannot be deemed that a tax notice on each taxation of this case was not served on the plaintiff. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the degree of proof of service of tax notice

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.