(a) Criteria for determining whether the period for requesting examination is observed, in the event that such institution is replaced;

B. Legal nature of Article 3 of the Regulations on the Investigation and Investigation of Local Taxes (No. 586 of the Ministry of Home Affairs Directive of June 1, 1979)

C. Whether the latter part of Article 62(2) and the latter part of Article 69(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes apply to the procedure for objection to local taxes

(a) In the case of a request for examination under Article 58 (3) of the Local Tax Act, if the request for examination is submitted to an institution subordinate to it which is not a legitimate diesel institution, determination as to whether the period for the request for examination is observed shall be made on the basis of

B. Article 3 of the Regulations on the Conduct of Local Tax Re-Investigation and Examination Affairs (No. 586 of June 1, 1979) provides that "where a petitioner submits an application, the head of the receiving agency shall transfer the application without delay to the head of the receiving agency and shall notify the applicant of the purport thereof." This cannot be deemed as an act of the Do governor acting for the head of the receiving agency by requesting the applicant to supplement the documents by the head of the Gun.

C. Article 65 of the Local Tax Act provides that the Framework Act on National Taxes and the National Tax Collection Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the imposition and collection of local taxes except as otherwise provided for in this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes. However, as long as Article 46-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides for procedures for objection to the imposition of local taxes, there is no room for the latter part of Article 62(2)

(a) Article 58(3) of the Local Tax Act, Articles 46(2) and 46-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 2 of the Subwon Act. Article 66(2)(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Articles 62(2) and 69(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Nu22 delivered on May 25, 1976, 78Nu430 delivered on February 13, 1979, and 83Nu384 delivered on November 22, 1983

Attorney Lee Jae-moron Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The head of Leecheon-gun

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu143 delivered on September 5, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that a person who makes a request for review under the latter part of Article 58 (3) of the Act shall submit a request for review to the Minister of Home Affairs or to the Governor via the head of the local government who made the request for reexamination. According to Article 46-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a request for reexamination or review under the provisions of Article 58 (1) and (3) of the Act shall be deemed to have been filed by the decision-making agency within the prescribed period. Thus, if the request for review was submitted to an agency other than the above legitimate transit agency, it shall be determined whether the request for review was made based on the date of delivery to the legitimate transit agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Nu430, Feb. 13, 1979; 83Nu384, Nov. 22, 1983).

In the end, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles, and it cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)