Criteria for determining whether the period for requesting an examination against the disposition of imposing local tax under Article 58 (3) of the Local Tax Act is observed;

According to the provisions of Articles 46 (2) and 46-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the examination request period for the disposition of imposing local taxes under Article 58 (3) of the same Act shall not be based on the time when the request for examination is received by the determination institution, but shall be based on the time when the request is received by the legitimate

Article 58 (3) of the Local Tax Act, Articles 46 (2) and 46-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu178 Delivered on July 8, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu596 delivered on November 18, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiffs were notified of the imposition of the property tax, urban planning tax, and defense tax of this case and filed an objection with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 15, 1985, and that the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City rendered a decision of dismissal on December 23, 1985, and that the plaintiffs received the service of the decision on December 26, 1985, and filed a request for review with the Minister of Home Affairs on February 27, 1986, and that the request for review of this case was unlawful after the expiration of the period for

However, according to Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, a person who makes a request for examination under Article 58 (3) of the Act shall submit a request for examination to the Minister of Home Affairs or to the Do governor through the head of the local government who made a decision on the request for examination. According to Article 46-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a request for examination or objection under Article 58 (1) and (3) of the same Decree shall be deemed to have been made by receiving it to the transit agency within the period prescribed by the same paragraph. Thus, whether the request for examination complies with the period shall be determined based on the time when the request for examination was received to the competent transit agency (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu178 delivered on July 8, 1986). The court below did not examine the request for examination at all or without examining it when it was received to the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the transit agency, and judged whether it was unlawful by misapprehending the legal principles as to the request period and the procedure of administrative litigation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)