(a) Notification made by mistake in the calculation of the period of an administrative agency and alteration of the examination request period;

(b) The initial date of the period for administrative litigation or request for review where no decision is made;

(c) Whether the application for examination with a limited term is examined on the merits of the administrative agency and meets requirements for transfer;

A. Even if a request for examination was erroneously notified due to an error in calculation of the period by an administrative agency, such error may not result in an alteration of the request period, which is an peremptory term under

B. The phrase “if no notification is given” under Article 58(9) of the Local Tax Act refers to the time when the decision reaches the applicant. Thus, the request for review shall be considered to have been dismissed as the lapse of the period for decision making, unless the decision is given within the period for decision making. Thus, the period for administrative litigation or review shall begin from that time.

C. Although the Minister of Home Affairs did not dismiss a request for review against the disposition of property tax (local tax) which was filed subsequent to the lapse of the time limit for the request for review, it cannot be deemed that such a request for review satisfies the requirements of the pre-trial procedure, which is the premise of administrative litigation, even if he/she entered the main body

(a) Article 58(3) of the Local Tax Act; Article 58(9) of the Local Tax Act; Article 58(3) of the Local Tax Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 77Nu237 delivered on April 11, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 4292Nu104 delivered on December 12, 1960; Supreme Court Decision 65Nu119 delivered on October 26, 1965; Supreme Court Decision 74Nu214 delivered on November 25, 1975

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gwangju City/Gu

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu68 delivered on December 21, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

(1) The judgment of the court below should have made a decision to revise the above disposition on the plaintiff's request for reexamination of the property tax of this case (the date of request for reexamination) and notified the plaintiff on January 6, 1981. The plaintiff filed a request for examination to the 2.9 Do governor before that year through February 4 of the same year. The above branch office shall notify the plaintiff of the extension of the period for examination by 2.17 days before that year (the extension of the period for determination shall be 45 days before that year) within 2.10 days after that date. According to the above provision, the court below's decision to dismiss the request for reexamination again within 10 days after that date shall be 10 days after that date. The court below's decision to dismiss the request again within 2.5 days after that date shall be 10 days after that date, which shall be 9 days after that date, which shall be 9 days after that date, which shall be 10 days after that date.

(2) The plaintiff was notified by the Jeonnam-do governor that the period for decision making should be the period for decision making until May 12, 1981, and the plaintiff was served on May 15, 1981 that the decision of dismissal of the request for decision making by the Jeonnam-do governor was made on June 15, 1981. Thus, the request for a review of this case to the Minister of Home Affairs which was made on June 15, 1981, which was made on June 30th of the same year, cannot change the period for decision making due to a legitimate request for a review, or even if the decision making was erroneously notified due to an error in the calculation of the period by an administrative agency, the request for review of this case cannot change the period for decision making by the peremptory term under the Local Tax Act, and it is clear that the request for a review of this case will have been dismissed from the expiration of the period for decision making unless the decision was made on the request for decision making within the period for decision making.

In this purport, the decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, and the decision of the court below 81Nu229 delivered on May 25, 1982 is no matter of law, and it is just that the decision of the court below is the same purport.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.

Even if the Minister of Home Affairs accepted a request for review against the imposition and disposition of property tax (local tax) without a rejection of the request for review, which was filed after the lapse of the period for review, and made a review and decision on it, such request for review cannot be viewed as satisfying the requirements of the pre-trial procedure, which is the premise of administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 4292Da104 delivered on December 12, 1960; 65Nu19 delivered on October 26, 1965; 74Nu214 delivered on November 25, 1975). So long as the Minister of Home Affairs conducted a substantive review, the argument that the defect or deficiency in the period for request for review should be cured, or that the defect in the procedure for administrative litigation should be subject to the legitimacy of administrative litigation as the date of the filing of administrative litigation after the completion of the final procedure cannot be admitted as an independent opinion.

3. 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 judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)