The effective date of notification of extension of the re-inspection or request for review

The notice of the extension of the period for re-audit or re-examination is intended to inform the person who made the re-audit or examination request, so the notice of the claimant cannot be effective only by sending the notice to the claimant, and only if the claimant knew or could know it, it is required that the extension of the period is established finally by the relevant decision-making agency.

Article 58 of the Local Tax Act, Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu237 Decided April 11, 1978

Plaintiff

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

Daegu High Court Decision 81Gu35 delivered on July 8, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the provisions of Article 58 (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (9), and (12) of the Local Tax Act, any person who has an objection to the imposition and collection of local taxes, or the disposition on default may make a request for reinspection within 30 days after he is notified of the disposition. If a reinvestigation is requested, the Governor or the head of Si/Gun shall make a decision within 30 days after he receives the request, and if there is no notice of the decision within 30 days (75 days if the period has been extended) or there is an objection to the decision, the Minister of Home Affairs or the Do governor shall make a request for review within 30 days after he receives the notice of the decision within 30 days after he receives the request for review, and if the decision cannot be made within 30 days after he receives the request for review, he shall make a decision within 30 days after he receives the notification of the decision or re-investigation to the institution which has received the request for review, he shall make a notification of the decision or re-investigation within 45 days after receipt of the request for review.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was notified of the disposition of disposition such as the property tax of this case from the defendant on November 29, 1976 and requested the Busan City Mayor to conduct a reinvestigation on December 8, 197. The decision of the court below was accepted on January 5, 1977 by submitting a request for review to the Minister of Home Affairs, which is the Busan City Mayor on January 22, 197. The request was sent (the date received from the Minister of Home Affairs according to original evidence) to the Minister of Home Affairs on February 9, 1977, which is the 30-day expiration date of the decision of the court below, and it was hard to find that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff's request for review as to the extension of the period of decision of 97 days prior to the expiration date of the decision of 97 days prior to the expiration date of the decision of the court below, since the notice sent from the Ministry of Home Affairs on March 16, 197.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)