[재산세등부과처분취소][집31(2)특,70;공1983.6.1.(705),828]
(a) The purport of the exclusive subject-matter of lawsuit in an administrative litigation;
B. Ex officio determination of whether a pre-determination procedure is transferred
A. Administrative litigation is a lawsuit related to the cancellation or change of illegal dispositions by an administrative agency or other legal relationships under public law, and thus, the so-called so-called the so-called so-called the so-called so-called so-called the so-called so-called the so-called dispositive authority’s re-determination that it gives the administrative agency the opportunity to reconsider and correct the administrative action in light of the unique characteristics
B. In a case where a request for reexamination or review was rejected due to a defect in the pre-assessment procedure, the administrative litigation is also illegal because the pre-assessment procedure has become void. Thus, in a case where a request for reexamination or review has been rejected on the grounds that it did not comply with the request for correction, the court must examine prior to the determination of the merits, whether the pre-assessment procedure was legitimate, and determine whether the request for reexamination or review was
Article 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 58 of the Local Tax Act
Seoul High Court Decision 200Do458 decided May 1, 200
The head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu94 delivered on July 22, 1982
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are examined ex officio prior to the judgment.
According to the provisions of Article 58 of the Local Tax Act, a person who has an objection to the imposition and collection of local taxes may make a request for reinvestigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of the disposition, and the Do Governor, the head of Si/Gun, if such request is made, shall make a decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of such request, and if the decision is not notified within this period, the request for reinvestigation shall be deemed dismissed, and if there is no objection to the request for reinspection or notice of the decision within the prescribed period, the request for review shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice or request for review shall be within 30 days from the date of receipt of the request for review. In this case, if the decision is not made within this period, it shall be deemed that the request for review has been rejected, and if it is deemed that the request for reexamination cannot be deliberated due to defects in the form of request or lack of supporting evidence, it shall be ordered to correct it within 10 days and within 20 days from the date of receipt of the request for reexamination or reexamination, 198 days from the date of request for correction.
Under the current law, administrative litigation is a lawsuit related to the cancellation or change of an administrative agency's illegal disposition or other legal relationship of public law, and the so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called "original authority" in this administrative litigation means that the administrative agency is given an opportunity for inventory and correction in consideration of the characteristics and expertise of administrative act. Thus, in case of dismissal due to defects in the pre-trial procedure, administrative litigation is also illegal because there is no prior procedure. Therefore, in case of this case where the request for reexamination and review were rejected, it should be examined prior to the determination of the merits, and each of the above rejection dispositions should be clarified. In addition, in addition, the plaintiff's request for reexamination of this case was clearly made on November 1, 1981 and the expiration of thirty days due to the expiration of the above period, and it is clear that the plaintiff's request for reexamination of this case had been rejected despite the request for reexamination of this case by the plaintiff on November 3 of the same year, 199, and without the plaintiff's request for correction of this case, it should be examined.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which does not require any determination on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)