In the case of a re-investigation or a notice of extension of the period for request for review, whether the notice alone takes effect.

The notification of re-audit or extension of the period of request for review under Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act shall be effective only by sending notification, unless otherwise provided for in the Local Tax Act.

Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu237 Decided April 11, 1978

Plaintiff

Attorney Han-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu393 Delivered on January 23, 1979

Daegu High Court Decision 79Gu33 delivered on December 4, 1979

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney are examined.

According to Article 58 (5) of the Local Tax Act, the Minister of Home Affairs shall make a decision within 30 days from the date of receiving the request: Provided, That 30 days from the date of receiving the request for examination, i.e., the date of receiving the request, but if it is impossible to make a decision within 30 days from the date of receiving the request for examination, i.e., the transit institution, under Article 46-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, this provision provides that 45 days may be extended again by notifying the person who made the request for examination. Paragraph (9) of the same Article provides that the above 30 days shall be deemed to have been dismissed if the determination was not made within 7 days from the date of receiving the request, and Paragraph (12) of the same Article shall be deemed to have been made within 17 days from the date of receiving the notification of the decision within 9 days from the date of receiving the request for examination, referring to the period of 17 days from the date of receiving the request for examination and determination.

However, it is not clear that the court below's decision that the plaintiff, the applicant of February 9, 197, the expiration date of 30 days of the review and decision period, notified the extension period to the plaintiff. It is hard to find that the plaintiff's notice was sent to the plaintiff by February 9, 197, or that the plaintiff was sent to the plaintiff by the Minister of Home Affairs. However, Gap evidence No. 9, the only evidence of the court below in recognizing the extension notice, which is the document No. 9, was the notice of extension of the decision of February 9, 197, under the name of the Minister of Home Affairs, was sent to the plaintiff of Busan City, which is the expiration date of 30 days of the review and decision period, and it is hard to find that the plaintiff's notice of extension was sent to the plaintiff by 197, the expiration date of the decision period of 197, and it is hard to find that the notice of extension was sent to the plaintiff by 297, the expiration date of the decision period of this case.

Therefore, the court below judged that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was a legitimate lawsuit filed within the statutory filing period, barring any special circumstance, it did not properly examine the above Gap evidence No. 9 or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above extension notice, and the illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment as to whether the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case complies with the filing period of this case. Therefore, the argument in this regard is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a further trial and determination without making a decision on other points among the arguments.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)