The method of "Notification" for extending the period under Article 58 of the Local Tax Act

"Notification of extension of the period provided for in Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act" shall be sufficient to notify the other party within 30 days of the period for decision, if the decision-making agency concerned has lawfully decided the extension of the period, and the means shall not necessarily be limited to written notification, but shall have the effect of notifying the other party if he knows it orally or by telephone.

Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu237 Decided April 11, 1978, 81Nu229 Decided May 25, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 82Nu565 Decided April 12, 1983

Telecommunications Development Corporation

Attorney Jung-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu146 delivered on April 19, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was notified of the disposition imposing acquisition tax of this case by the defendant on January 16, 1982 and requested a re-inspection to the defendant on February 5 of the same year, and the Busan City Mayor, which is the ruling authority, sent a notice of extension of the decision period pursuant to Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act to the plaintiff on March 11 of the same year (the plaintiff sent a decision of dismissal of re-inspection). The plaintiff received the above notice of extension of the period for decision period by March 12 of the same year after 30 days from the decision period for decision, and submitted a request for re-inspection to the Mayor of Busan, which is an institution via April 22 of the same year. Thus, the plaintiff's request for re-inspection was already dismissed before the plaintiff received the above extension notice. Thus, the plaintiff's request for re-inspection was made from March 12, 1982, and the plaintiff's request for re-inspection was made by 30 days ( April 10, 1982).).

The notice of the extension of the period under Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act refers to not only the applicant should be served within 30 days of the re-audit period under Article 58 (2) of the Local Tax Act, but also the notification is to inform the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 77Nu237 delivered on April 11, 1978), so long as the re-audit agency concerned has lawfully decided the extension of the period, it shall be sufficient to notify the applicant of the period within 30 days of the re-audit decision. The method is not necessarily limited to written notice, but also a verbal or telephone call does not have the effect of notifying the other party if it is known. However, according to the records, the plaintiff is a person who was known on March 12, 1982 after the period of re-audit decision expires, and there is no need for the court below to have determined the extension of the period under Article 58 (2) of the Local Tax Act, and there is no other evidence that the plaintiff did not have been notified or received by the legitimate method of the decision.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)