Although the written objection and name stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes are different forms, the contents of the written objection are sought to revoke the taxation disposition, and it is judged that the written objection can be seen as an objection

In light of the fundamental purpose of the objection system, which is to relieve a person whose right or interest has been infringed due to an illegal or unfair administrative disposition, an administrative appeal required as a prior trial procedure of the administrative litigation does not require a strict form of its filing. Thus, if the tax authority raises an objection in writing to the effect that, within the objection period of the objection against the tax disposition, there is a dispute between the heir based on inherited property subject to taxation and the heir, thereby cancelling the issuance of the notice until the final and conclusive date of the judgment, it is reasonable to deem the submission of the above written statement as an objection under Article 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, on the ground that the written objection is different from the written objection under Articles 54(1) and 50(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and its content is obviously an objection to the cancellation of the initial disposition.

Article 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 54(1) and 50(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu912 delivered on June 26, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff was aware of the taxation disposition of this case from January 17, 1985 to March 19, 1985, the plaintiff filed a request for examination without legitimate filing an objection to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 30, 1985. Thus, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's request for examination on the ground that the plaintiff did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure is legitimate. Thus, on January 17, 1985, the notice of gift tax of this case to the defendant, who is an administrative agency, knew that there was a tax disposition of this case on January 21, 1985, the defendant's request for examination on the ground that the plaintiff's request for examination on the pre-trial property tax of this case was legitimate and unreasonable by submitting a written objection stating that "the cancellation of the notice of inheritance or gift tax before the final date of judgment" was without merit, and the plaintiff's request for examination on the ground that the plaintiff's request for examination was without legitimate grounds of appeal No. 16.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

The court below determined that the above non-party 1 died on November 21, 1979 of the plaintiff's father and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 5, his wife, the non-party 4, the non-party 6, and the non-party 7, etc. were jointly inherited property. The non-party 1 owned 418,095 shares issued by the above company at the time of death and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, each of inheritance.

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

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)