The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to add the judgment of this court. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The 4th page 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was filled by this court, “The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Expropriation Committee” in the 4th page 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be deemed to be “the Namyang-

3. The plaintiff asserts that the court's additional decision in this court is unlawful to serve the plaintiff a written adjudication of acceptance at the Namyang-si, which is not the disposition agency of the acceptance of this case but the service agency of the written adjudication of acceptance of this case, and that the service of the written adjudication of acceptance to the above place is illegal unless the plaintiff did not designate I (hereinafter "I") as the service place, and that the service of the written adjudication of acceptance to the above place is made by the Namyang-ju City.

First, we examine the argument ① and ②.

The arrival as a requirement for taking effect of an administrative disposition is sufficient until the other party to the disposition actually becomes aware of the details of the written disposition and it is sufficient to keep the other party known, and when the written disposition is delivered to the other party's resident registration, his/her domicile, place of work, etc. and the other party to the disposition or the person entrusted with the authority to receive postal items receives it, it is deemed that the other party to the disposition

(see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du60577, Mar. 9, 2017). However, the evidence cited earlier, as well as the entries and arguments of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, respectively.