(a) If a claimant requests correction after the period for decision by the National Tax Tribunal expires, the initial date in reckoning the period for institution of administrative litigation; and

(b) The case holding that the party does not fall under any cause not attributable to him with respect to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit;

(a) If the statutory period of decision (90 days) has elapsed before the request for correction of the National Tax Tribunal was served on the claimant, the request for correction has no effect, and the request for adjudgment shall be deemed dismissed on the date of expiration of the decision, and the period of filing the administrative litigation shall proceed from the following day.

B. It cannot be readily concluded that the head of the National Tax Tribunal’s request for correction was imminent to the end of the period for decision, or there was an indication of guidance to file an administrative litigation within 60 days from the date of receipt of the written decision in the decision of the National Tax Tribunal, etc.

(a) Articles 56(2), 81, and 63(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu245 delivered on November 27, 1984, 85Nu99 delivered on May 27, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu805 delivered on March 10, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu184 delivered on September 10, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's request for correction cannot take effect in the court on March 28, 1985, since the plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Director of the National Tax Tribunal on December 28, 1984, and the Director of the National Tax Tribunal sent a written request for correction to the plaintiff on March 28, 1985, and served on the plaintiff on March 30, 1985, and the decision of correction on the above tax disposition was made on April 25, 1985, and the plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff on June 21, 1985, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on March 28, 1985, before the request for correction was served to the plaintiff on March 28, 1985 (90 days). Accordingly, the above request for correction was dismissed on March 28, 1985, and the period of filing the administrative lawsuit will continue. Thus, the court below's decision is unlawful by misapprehending legal principles.

In addition, even if the record is examined, there is no error in the request for correction of March 28, 1985, in addition to the above written statement, because there is no circumstance that can be seen that the request for correction was notified to the Plaintiff on the day, and therefore, it is not possible to examine whether or not there was a verbal notification. Whether the Director of the National Tax Tribunal sent a request for correction at the end of the period for decision, or whether the Director of the National Tax Tribunal sent a request for correction at the time of the decision for reduction of the National Tax Tribunal on April 25, 1985, or the circumstance that the Plaintiff stated the same text of the guidance to file an administrative litigation within 60 days from the date of receipt of the decision, cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff cannot be held liable

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)