[증여세부과처분취소][집26(1)행,164;공1978.7.1.(587) 10818]
Whether it can be deemed that the procedures for an administrative litigation have been completed under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act with respect to the imposition of internal taxes.
If a person who is subject to a disposition imposing internal taxes such as gift tax is dissatisfied with such disposition and the Board of Audit and Inspection requests a review as prescribed in Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act within the peremptory period under Article 55 (5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and goes through such procedures, it shall be deemed to have gone through a prior trial procedure of administrative litigation disputing the illegality
Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
The litigation performer at the Sung-dong Head of the District Tax Office, the
Seoul High Court Decision 77Gu92 delivered on January 10, 1978
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant performer
Examining the provisions of Article 5(1)3 and (5) through (7) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 43, 44, 46, and 52 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, and Article 6 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Rules of the Board of Audit and Inspection, etc., where a person who is subject to the disposition of internal tax such as gift tax is dissatisfied with such disposition and makes a request for examination as prescribed in Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act within the peremptory period under Article 5(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes within the peremptory period under Article 5(5) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, it is obvious that such request can be deemed as having undergone an administrative litigation procedure that contests the above disposition, separate from the appeal procedure prescribed in Chapter 7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if the adjusted bond is converted to an investment pursuant to Article 22(1) and (2) of the Presidential Emergency Order on Economic Stabilization and Growth, there is no urgent need to apply the provisions of Article 418 of the Commercial Act concerning the acquisition of the existing stockholders of the Framework Act.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. 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 Han-jin (Presiding Justice)