1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff filed a request for a review on the taxation disposition of this case on November 22, 1985 because the plaintiff did not receive a notice of decision on objection within 60 days after the above decision period expires, and therefore, the plaintiff filed a request for review on March 22, 1986 within 60 days after the above decision period expires, but the plaintiff filed a request for review on March 25, 1986 within 3 days after the above decision period expires. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff can be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the above decision, where the head of Busan Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City, which is the right holder of decision on objection, notified the plaintiff that the request for review was legitimate within 60 days from the date of receipt of the above decision period, and that the request for review which was filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice of decision on objection under the above provision of Article 18 (5) of the Local Tax Act cannot be viewed as a legitimate request for review or modification within the period under the Local Tax Act.

2. However, Article 65 of the Local Tax Act only provides that the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall apply mutatis mutandis to the imposition and collection of local taxes, so Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall not apply mutatis mutandis to procedures for objection to the imposition of local taxes, and Article 43(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that matters not provided for in other Acts shall be governed by this Act, even if the provisions of other Acts provide for special cases concerning administrative appeals, and Article 58 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4007 of Apr. 6, 198) provides that Article 18(11) of the former Local Tax Act provides that the provisions of the former Local Tax Act shall not apply to the period of the request for examination under Article 18(5) of the Administrative Appeals Act, while Article 18(5) of the same Act provides that the provisions of the former Local Tax Act shall not apply to the period of the request for examination (amended by Act No. 4007 of Apr. 6, 1988).

According to the records, if there is an objection against the decision on the objection sent to the plaintiff by the head of Busan Metropolitan City, which is an administrative agency, the purport of the above notice is stated that the plaintiff may make a request for examination within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice, and since it is apparent that the above notice reaches the plaintiff on January 27, 1986, the above notice is filed on March 25, 1986 within 60 days from January 27, 1986, which was received by the plaintiff, pursuant to Article 58 (3) of the Local Tax Act and Article 18 (5) of the Administrative Appeals Act.

Article 18 (5) of the former Local Tax Act does not apply to the request for review under the Local Tax Act. Thus, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit without a legitimate request for review is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of Articles 58 (3) and (11) of the former Local Tax Act and Articles 18 (5) and 43 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Act. Therefore, the argument on this point is reasonable.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)