1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The court's explanation of this case is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part amended under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The amended part of the first instance court’s decision that read “3. The lawfulness of the instant disposition is lawful” is amended as follows.

3. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition is that the instant disposition is null and void since the Defendant did not serve the Plaintiff’s notice of tax payment on the part of the Plaintiff or served the J with the authority to receive the above tax payment notice, even if the Defendant did not have the authority to receive the pertinent tax payment notice. However, the Plaintiff’s submission of the documents under this Act or tax-related Acts (amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 2002) shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the title holder (Article 8(1)), the above service shall be based on the delivery or postal service (Article 10(1)), and the delivery of the documents shall be based on the delivery or postal service (Article 10(1)), and the delivery of the documents may be made at another place where the relevant administrative agency’s public official is to receive the documents at the place where the documents are to be served (Article 10(3)). The Plaintiff’s submission of the documents to the Plaintiff’s legitimate receipt of the documents is without merit.

K from February 26, 1996 to July 24, 1998, K performed the Plaintiff’s representative director’s office, and J was appointed from March 30, 1992 to the director’s office and on February 7, 1996.