[증여세등부과처분취소][공1991.2.15.(890),655]
Where a decision was made within the period for decision on a request for a disposition imposing national taxes, but a decision was served after the expiration of such period, the initial date (=the expiration date of the decision period)
If a decision is not notified within the period of decision on a request for a disposition imposing national taxes, the request for adjudgment shall be considered to have been automatically dismissed upon the expiration of the period, and even if the decision was served on the claimant after the period of decision and the decision was made within that period, it may not affect the period of the administrative litigation calculated from the expiration of the period of decision.
Articles 56, 65(5), and 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Supreme Court Decision 81Nu236 delivered on October 25, 1983 (Gong1983,1753) 85Nu285 delivered on August 13, 1985 (Gong1985,1252) 85Nu99 delivered on May 27, 1986 (Gong1986,826) 86Nu805 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987,6766)
Attorney Han-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Head of Ulsan District Office
Busan High Court Decision 89Gu1988 delivered on May 23, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the provisions of Articles 81, 65(5) and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a decision on an appeal for the imposition of national taxes shall be made within 90 days from the date of receipt of the appeal, and if there is no notification of decision within the prescribed period for decision, the appeal shall be deemed dismissed. Administrative litigation for the imposition of national taxes shall be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of a notification of decision on the appeal, and if a notification of decision is not received, within the prescribed period for decision, the appeal shall be deemed dismissed, and if it is deemed that the above appeal has been dismissed, it shall be deemed that the decision has been naturally dismissed, and if it is deemed that the decision has been served on the claimant after the lapse of the prescribed period for decision, it shall be deemed that the decision has been made within the prescribed period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu805, Mar. 10, 1987; 85Nu999, May 13, 1985; 2085Nu36385, Dec. 1985.
In this regard, the court below's decision was just because the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the tax disposition of this case on April 7, 1989, but failed to be notified of the decision on July 6, 1989, which was within 90 days from this point, and therefore, it was clear that the lawsuit of this case was filed until September 4, 1989, which was within 60 days from this point, and dismissed the lawsuit of this case as it was illegal after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or incomplete hearing such as the theory of lawsuit.
As such, the argument that the provisions of Articles 81 and 65(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes apply only to cases where a decision of adjudication was not made within 90 days, and that the same provision does not apply to cases where a decision of adjudication was made within the said period, but only the notification of the decision was made after the said period expires is not acceptable.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)