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 reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for additional judgments, such as Paragraph (2). Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The Plaintiff asserts that, even in the absence of an addressee, the Defendant’s duty to detect the Plaintiff’s address or place of business with due care as a good manager, as the reason for service by public notice does not clearly distinguish between “where the address or place of business is unclear” (hereinafter “influence of address”) and “the absence of the recipient”), service by public notice is unlawful.

However, according to the provisions of Article 11(1)2 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Articles 7 and 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, there are clear differences between the name of address poor and the reason for the absence of the recipient by public notice, and the requirements for service by public notice by public notice by each reason is determined. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the requirements for the above

In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.