(a) Whether it can be deemed that a request for examination satisfies the requirements of the principle of re-determination in the event that the request for examination was received without dismissing any unlawful request for examination filed after the expiration of the examination period;

(b) Validity of the ruling made by a re-decision on a source such as a re-inspection of an objection to an administrative disposition, and whether such ruling is subject to an administrative litigation;

A. The Minister of Home Affairs did not dismiss a request for review which was filed after the lapse of the period of the review, and accepted it and deliberated on it on the merits, such a request for review cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements of the prior trial procedure, which is the premise of administrative litigation.

(b) The ruling of the ruling authority on a source of an objection to an administrative disposition, such as re-investigation of an appeal, a request for examination, etc., shall be binding on the administrative agency which conducted the administrative disposition in question, or a ruling of the ruling authority shall not be cancelled or changed as a matter of course by the ruling of the ruling authority, and any change in the cancellation or change of the administrative disposition in question by the administrative agency in accordance with the ruling shall be cancelled or changed from that time, and shall be subject to

Fixtures

Jeonju Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 74Gu10 decided August 2, 1974

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

(1) Based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s request for re-audit of the acquisition tax (Do tax) imposed by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, and that the branch made a request for re-audit to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, and the Plaintiff sent it to the Plaintiff on January 10 of the same year and filed a request for re-audit with the Minister of Home Affairs pursuant to Article 58 of the Local Tax Act, which determined that the Plaintiff rejected the request for re-audit under Article 58 of the same Act, and that the Minister of Home Affairs made a request for re-audit to the Minister of Home Affairs within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notification. The Plaintiff’s request for re-audit was clearly illegal after the expiration of the above period, and even if the Minister of Home Affairs made a substantial decision, it cannot be said that the pre-trial procedure as provided for in Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act was minor, and thus, the administrative litigation of this case was dismissed.

(2) While the plaintiff submitted a petition to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, a ruling authority for review to the Minister of Home Affairs on January 24, 1974, and this was delivered to the Minister of Home Affairs via the ruling authority, the theory was developed on the premise that the date of delivery to the Minister of Home Affairs is 1.31 in the same year, the records were examined, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff filed a petition for review via the Governor of Jeollabuk-do branch office on January 24, 1974, or that the request for review was made within the time limit for the request for review, and no further need to examine the date of the request for review, and even if the Minister of Home Affairs accepted the petition without rejecting the request for review which was filed after the lapse of the time limit for the request for review, it cannot be deemed that the request for review satisfies the requirements of the pre-trial procedure, which is the premise of administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 65Nu119, Oct. 26, 1965).

2. Judgment ex officio

The ruling of the ruling authority on an objection to an administrative disposition shall bind the administrative agency which issued the administrative disposition (Article 13 of the Reference Litigation Act). However, it shall not be revoked or changed as a matter of course by the ruling of the ruling authority, but it shall require the administrative agency to cancel or change the administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 4293No585 delivered on Nov. 16, 1961). Unless otherwise provided in the law, an administrative litigation may not be instituted against a ruling, and only an administrative disposition which was executed as a result of the ruling shall be subject to administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 72Nu171,173 delivered on Jul. 10, 1973). Since the records of this case are based on the records of the judgment of the court below, it shall not be deemed that the defendant issued the above disposition of 70,000 won acquisition tax against the plaintiff as a corrective disposition of the 197Da17060 delivered on July 26, 1973.

3. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)