[취득세부과처분취소][집28(3)행,34;공1980.12.1.(645),13298]
(a) Method of notifying extension of the period under Article 58 (2) of the Local Tax Act;
(b) Validity of notification of the extension of the period for decision after the reinvestigation expires;
1. The notification of the extension of the period under Article 58(2) of the Local Tax Act is possible in writing or orally or by telephone as there is no special provision.
2. The notice of the extension of the period should be served to the applicant during the re-inspection period, so unless the notice of extension is given within the period, the request for re-inspection shall be considered to be dismissed as the expiration of the period for decision, and it shall not be effective even if the notice of extension was given after the expiration of the period.
Article 58 (2) of the Local Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 77Nu237 delivered on April 1, 1978, 79Nu22 delivered on April 10, 1979
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu363 delivered on July 25, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the facts established by the judgment of the court below, the re-audit agency for this case decided to extend the period of decision in February 3, 1979, but the notice reached February 7 of the same year to the plaintiff who is the applicant for re-audit.
According to Article 58 (2) of the Local Tax Act, if a request for reinspection is made, it shall be made within 30 days from the date the request is made. However, if a request for reinspection is not made within the prescribed period, it shall be notified to the applicant that the period may be extended again by 45 days. Thus, there is no special provision regarding the notice of extension of the period, and it shall be made in writing or orally or by telephone (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu22 delivered on April 10, 1979). However, if the notice of extension is not made within the prescribed period, it shall be delivered to the applicant within the prescribed period (see Supreme Court Decision 77Nu237 delivered on April 11, 1978). Thus, unless the notice of extension is made within the prescribed period, it shall be deemed that the request for reinspection was dismissed as the expiration of the prescribed period, and even if the notice of extension of the period for reexamination was made after the expiration of the prescribed period for decision, it shall not be legally extended.
In this regard, the decision of the court below that held that the procedure of the previous trial is unlawful on account of the expiration of the time limit for the request for review by the plaintiff cannot be adopted.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice)