[부가가치세등부과처분취소][공1988.4.1.(821),532]
Whether a peremptory term not being observed by mistake of a party constitutes a cause for which the party is not responsible.
Even if the parties were to be mistaken that the petition of appeal was submitted to the court below, thereby unable to observe the peremptory period of the petition of appeal, it cannot be said that the parties fail to observe the period due to any cause not attributable to them.
Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Head of Ulsan District Tax Office and one other
Daegu High Court Decision 86Gu276 delivered on June 17, 1987
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.
We examine the legitimacy of the instant appeal.
According to the records, the date when the original copy of the judgment of the court below was served on the defendants, and the date when the original copy of the judgment of the court below was received to the court below was July 29 of the same year, and there was no trace of the petition of appeal other than the subsequent appellate brief submitted to the court below.
On July 11, 1987, prior to the filing of the instant appeal, the Defendants filed an appeal to the lower court by delivery-certified mail, but the lower court did not bind the filing of the appeal to the records, and filed a second appeal to the lower court without denying the receipt of the report. However, it is difficult to find that the materials submitted by the Defendants alone were submitted to the lower court by delivery-certified mail. Moreover, even if the Defendants were to be mistaken that the instant appeal was submitted to the lower court, it cannot be said that the Defendants failed to comply with the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the parties, even if they were unable to comply with the instant appeal by mistake that the Defendants were submitted to the lower court.
Ultimately, the Defendants’ final appeal of this case is unlawful because it was filed with an excessive peremptory period, and it does not meet the requirements for subsequent completion, and the defect is not of the nature to be corrected.
Therefore, all appeals are 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 judges.
Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)