1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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, citing the instant case, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff makes a decision on the assertion emphasized by the court of first instance as the reason for appeal and added to Paragraph 2, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal 1) Although the Defendant cannot confirm the address, etc. of the person to be served with ordinary methods as prescribed by Article 14(4) of the Administrative Procedures Act or where it is unclear whether it is impossible to serve with the Plaintiff, the instant disposition was unlawful as it served by public notice of the instant disposition. Even if the Defendant’s service by public notice of the instant disposition was made to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, even if the Defendant’s service by public notice of the instant disposition was made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, the provisions on the method of service by public notice and the occurrence of effect under Articles 14(4) and 15(3)

B. According to the records, the Plaintiff’s resident registration has been made in the same address since he/she transferred to the Plaintiff’s domicile (Songnam-gu Q) on October 31, 201 until the instant lawsuit is filed (the same applies to the case where the Defendant sent a summary hearing on the disposition of the instant penalty surcharge on September 24, 2015, or the written disposition of the instant disposition is served by service by public notice at the time of sending the written statement on the disposition of the instant penalty surcharge or by service of the written disposition of the instant disposition.

The plaintiff himself does not actually reside in the above domicile due to the circumstances of the plaintiff and her husband while having his resident registration in the above domicile. From March 2014 to March 2016, the plaintiff resided in the R farm located in the iron farm operated by the branch and thereafter resides in the two Pyeongtaek-gun S, which is served to the above domicile.