1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not meet the requirements for service by public notice while rendering the instant disposition, and sought confirmation of the invalidity of the instant disposition by public notice.

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the court below held that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking cancellation of the disposition in this case, and that the judgment of loss was affirmed (Seoul District Court Decisions 2014Gudan31210, Jun. 24, 2015; 2015Nu50650, Seoul High Court; 2016Du33858, May 27, 2016). According to the above facts of recognition, since the res judicata effect of the final judgment is not limited to the lawsuit in this case, the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition in this case is made based on the substantive and procedural illegality of the disposition in this case, and the object of the review is the objective existence of the tax base and tax amount, which are tax obligations recognized by the taxation disposition in this case, and that the judgment of cancellation of the disposition in this case becomes legitimate, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the final judgment in this case cannot be asserted as 200.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.