1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's addition from the trial room is against the defendant Jong-ro director of the tax office.

1. The reasons why the party members of the court of first instance explain this case as to Gap's evidence of evidence No. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 27-1, and Eul evidence No. 27-2, and rejection evidence of evidence No. 30, Eul evidence No. 7, evidence No. 18-1, evidence No. 23-25, evidence No. 32, evidence No. 33-5, evidence No. 34-1 through 4, evidence No. 35-1, evidence No. 36, evidence No. 37-1, No. 38-2, evidence No. 15, evidence No. 38-1, and evidence No. 39-2, evidence No. 30, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 39-1, No. 2, and evidence No. 30-1, No. 31, and No. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the supplementary claim against the defendant Sejong District Tax Office is invalid since he did not receive a tax payment notice regarding the detailed disposition of this case (hereinafter "the notice of this case").

According to Article 14 of the Administrative Procedures Act, service of a written disposition shall be made by means of mail, etc. to the address, residence, place of business, office, or e-mail address of the person to be served, and service by delivery shall be made by delivering the document after receiving a written receipt of the written receipt. However, if the person to be served is not present at the place of service, it shall be made to his/her office worker, employee, or inmate with the capability to make reasonable judgment.

In addition, if a postal item is sent by means of registration, it shall be deemed that the postal item was delivered to the addressee at that time, barring special circumstances, such as return.

Dominants, Gap evidence 8, 9, Gap evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 6, 11, 13 through 15, 16, 16.