[취득세부과처분취소][공1981.12.15.(670),14503]
If the review and decision is notified after the lapse of the period for decision, it is necessary to ex officio examine whether the extension is notified (affirmative)
It is an example that the agency (the Minister of Home Affairs) reviewing the request for review of the imposition of acquisition tax shall make a substantial decision after the expiration of the statutory decision period without giving the notice of extension. Accordingly, in light of this, it is not reasonable to conclude that the filing period has been expired solely based on the party’s statement that there was no notice of extension of the decision period, but rather on the basis of the party’s statement that there was no notice of extension
Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act, Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Plaintiff
The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu612 delivered on April 14, 1981
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the results of the review, found that the plaintiff filed a request for reexamination against the Mayor of March 24, 1980 who received the notice of the disposition of this case from the Minister of Home Affairs on March 17, 1980, and received a notice of the decision of dismissal on May 7 of the same year, and again filed a request for reexamination to the Minister of Home Affairs, which is the 6.9 decision-making agency in the same year, but the Minister of Home Affairs, upon receipt of a partial decision of correction within July 28 of the same year as the 30th decision-making agency in the same year, sent the decision-making decision to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was a notice of correction or extension of the decision by the Minister of Home Affairs, the period of filing the lawsuit against the above disposition is 30 days from July 9 of the same year, which falls under the expiration date of the decision-making period by the Minister of Home Affairs, and therefore, the period of filing the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.
In this case, the issue of whether the Minister of Home Affairs notified the plaintiff of the extension of the so-called extension period under Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act in processing the plaintiff's request for examination is an issue. According to the second oral proceedings of March 31, 1981 (record No. 52 No. 52) of the court below, the plaintiff stated that there was no notification of extension period from the Minister of Home Affairs regarding the request for examination of this case. The court below concluded that there was no notification of extension period in the process of the request for examination of this case based on the plaintiff's statement. However, the determination of whether the plaintiff's request for examination of this case was originally satisfied does not necessarily require that the plaintiff's statement should be presented (see Supreme Court Decision 76Nu268, Apr. 12, 197). Thus, the court below's determination of the extension of the above period should be made after the expiration of the time period without the plaintiff's notice of extension. Thus, the court below's determination of the court below's determination of this case's determination should be justified.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)