B. The meaning of the so-called "the date when he knows that there is an administrative disposition" under Article 3 (1) of the Sub-Appellant Act.

(b) The service of documents pursuant to Article 24 of the former National Tax Collection Act (Act No. 1207, Dec. 8, 622) shall take effect upon arrival of the documents to the receiver, unless otherwise provided by the group;

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

The service of documents under Korean legal system is effective when the documents are delivered to the receiver unless otherwise stipulated by the group, so the service of documents under Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act (Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act only stipulates the method of service) is prohibited before and after the establishment of Article 24-2 of the National Tax Collection Act (Article 24 of the same Act) as there is no separate provision for the time when service takes effect under the National Tax Collection Act.

In addition, the record of this case is examined in detail and it is not found that there is no reason to suspect that evidence cooking or fact-finding violated logical rules or rules of experience in the part concerning the delivery of notice of public auction to the plaintiff in the disposition of arrears asserted that the defendant sent to the plaintiff among the original judgment, and therefore, it is nothing more than to attack the legitimate contents of the original judgment, and it cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

In light of the purport of Article 3(1) of the Won-won Act stipulating the period of filing a lawsuit within one month from the date when the administrative disposition was taken within one month after the date when the party became aware of the fact that the administrative disposition was taken, if one of the parties to the lawsuit knew of the fact that the disposition was taken within three months from the date when the maximum period of filing the lawsuit was taken, it can be seen that the period of filing the lawsuit was reduced within one month from the date when the party became aware of the fact that the disposition was taken within the above period of time, so the above mentioned time limit of filing the lawsuit was interpreted as having been up to one day after the party became aware of the fact that the disposition was taken within the above time limit of one month from the date when the party became aware of the fact that the disposition was taken within the above time limit of time limit of one month. In addition, in case of the lawsuit, the plaintiff's notice of the disposition was served to his family living together with the plaintiff who was subject to the administrative disposition, i.e., the plaintiff's second 2000 after the public auction.

3. Determination on the third ground of the same title;

Even if a record is examined in detail, there is no reason to suspect that there is an error in the deliberation of evidence or the fact-finding in the theory of the original judgment among the original judgment, and it is not recognized that the fact-finding is inconsistent with the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the original judgment, so the above argument is nothing more than an issue about the matters exclusively belonging to the authority of the original court, which is groundless.

Therefore, by unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)