Where the examination and decision on disposition of imposing local taxes was conducted within the statutory period, but the applicant for examination is notified after the statutory period expires, the starting point of calculating the period

Where it is deemed that a request for examination against a disposition imposing local taxes is dismissed within 60 days from the filing date of the request for examination, the period for administrative litigation shall be counted from the date of dismissal, even if the request for examination is made within the period for examination after the expiration of the period, and the decision was made within the period for examination.

Article 58 of the Local Tax Act, Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Nu136 decided Dec. 29, 1970 (No. 183Nu36 decided Apr. 26, 1983) (Gong1983,915)

Seoul Food Industry Corporation

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim In-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1134 delivered on May 18, 198

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

First, as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case ex officio, in light of the provisions of Article 58(2), (3), (5), (9), and (12) of the Local Tax Act, and Article 46-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the determination of local tax imposition shall be made within 60 days from the date the request for examination is received, and if the decision is not notified within the decision period, the request for examination shall be deemed dismissed, and if the decision is not notified, administrative litigation against the disposition imposing local tax shall be filed within 60 days from the date the decision on the request for examination is notified, and if the decision is not notified, the request for examination shall be deemed dismissed, and if the above request for examination is deemed dismissed, it shall be deemed that the decision is naturally dismissed after the expiration of the decision period, and even if the decision was made within the decision period, the period of administrative litigation shall be counted from the date the above request for examination is dismissed (see Supreme Court Decision 70Nu13636, Apr. 36, 1983).

The evidence No. 2 (Notice of Decision on Request for Local Tax Review by the Minister of Home Affairs) states that the plaintiff filed a request for review on April 28, 1987, and according to the records, the plaintiff was not notified of the decision on the above request for review until June 27 of the same year within 60 days from that date (the plaintiff was notified of the decision to dismiss the above request for review on July 1 of the same year). Thus, even though it is obvious that the plaintiff filed an administrative suit until August 26 of the same year within 60 days from June 27 to June 27 of the same year, it is obvious that he filed the lawsuit of this case on August 27 of the same year, and thus, it cannot be exempt from the lawsuit of this case which was filed after the

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether the period of filing a lawsuit should be observed, such as whether the request for correction was made in the procedure of the request for review of this case, but without examining at all, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the period of filing a lawsuit or failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won