[양도소득세등부과처분취소][공1988.1.15.(816),188]
(a) Where a notice is given after an objection filed against the imposition of tax is dismissed, the initial date of the period for request for review;
(b) Whether a rejection ruling by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service against a request for review with an excessive peremptory period may be deemed to have gone through the administrative litigation and advanced proceedings;
A. According to the provisions of Articles 66(5), 65(2), and 65(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if a decision on the objection is not notified within 30 days from the date the objection was filed, the objection shall be deemed dismissed. Thus, once the objection is deemed dismissed after the lapse of the above period for decision making, the period for the request for review shall be calculated from the date the objection was dismissed, even if the decision on the objection was later notified.
(b) If the ruling of dismissal of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on the request for review has been too far known to the effect that the request for review was subject to an invariable period, then the person liable for duty payment cannot be deemed to lawfully undergo the procedure of the preceding instance which is the premise of administrative litigation or to remedy the defect;
(a) Articles 66(5), 65(2), and 65(5)/b. Article 61 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Supreme Court Decision 83Nu55 Decided April 26, 1983, 86Nu181 Decided December 9, 1986, 85Nu117 Decided October 22, 1985
Defendant-Appellee Head of the tax office
The superintendent of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu984 delivered on June 26, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to Articles 66(5), 65(2), and 65(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an objection shall be deemed dismissed if the decision on the objection is not notified within 30 days after the filing date of the objection. Thus, once the objection is deemed dismissed after the above period for decision expires, the period for the request for examination shall start from the date the objection is dismissed even if the decision on the subsequent objection is made after the above period for decision expires. If the request for examination is made with the lapse of the period for the request for examination, it shall be unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu181, Dec. 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu55, Apr. 26, 1983). In this case, the decision of dismissal by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on the request for examination shall be deemed to have been rejected after the plaintiff's request for examination was made with the peremptory term as seen earlier, and thus, the plaintiff's request for examination cannot be deemed to have been rejected or corrected by misapprehending the legal principles.
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 Man-hee (Presiding Justice)