[증여세등부과처분취소][공1990.10.1.(881),1978]
The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition was filed after the lapse of 150 days from the date the request for a national tax trial regarding the relevant taxation disposition was rejected ex officio without examining whether the request for correction was made
If the Director of the National Tax Tribunal requests correction concerning the contents or procedure of a request for a trial, this correction period shall not be included in the period for decision making, and it shall not be deemed dismissed only with the lapse of 90 days from the date of the request for a national tax trial. Thus, even if a lawsuit was filed again after the lapse of 60 days from the expiration of 90 days from the date of the request for a national tax trial with respect to a disposition of taxation, the existence of the above request for correction was examined, or records are not clear. If there was no assertion as to whether the plaintiff complies with the period for filing a lawsuit, the fact-finding court should ex officio dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the lawsuit is unlawful, not immediately dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful, but determine the legitimacy of the lawsuit by clarifying the factual relations by clarifying the fact-finding.
Articles 81, 63(1), and 65(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Articles 20(1) and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Kim Go-su
The Director of Gangnam District Office
Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8950 delivered on March 2, 1990
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, ex officio, examined the plaintiff's appeal against the disposition of this case at the National Tax Tribunal on February 8, 1989, which was filed by the defendant on October 5, 198, and the Director of the National Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the request for the judgment on June 1, 1989, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on August 3, 1989. Thus, the appeal of this case was deemed dismissed on May 9, 1989, and the period for filing the lawsuit of this case was within 60 days from that date, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal of this case on the ground that the plaintiff's appeal of this case was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.
Upon examining the records, the defendant raised the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, and thus, the plaintiff did not raise an objection to the safety of this case on February 8, 1989, and accordingly there is no other assertion or proof as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case received by the plaintiff to the National Tax Tribunal on August 3, 1989. However, according to Articles 81, 63 (1) and 65 (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the National Tax Tribunal may request the correction of the contents and procedure of the request for a trial within a reasonable time limit. If the correction period is not included in the period for correction, it cannot be deemed dismissed only on the ground that 90 days have passed since the date of the request for national tax trial was not included in the period for correction. In other words, the court below should have deliberated on the existence of the above facts or the records. If the plaintiff's objection to the safety of this case was not obvious, but it is unlawful as a fact-finding court's rejection of the lawsuit.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the decision period of the national tax adjudication or the hearing on the matters to be investigated ex officio, and this is affected by the judgment.
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.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)