(a) The case holding that it is insufficient to conduct an inquiry about whether the period of filing a lawsuit is observed after the closing of argument and use the result as the judgment materials;

(b) Method of demanding a claimant of the National Tax Tribunal to correct it;

A. Since compliance with the period allowed for administrative litigation belongs to the matter to be examined ex officio, the fact-finding by the court below on the matters related to the extension of the period is legitimate. However, since it is obvious that the response was conducted after the conclusion of argument by the court below and that the response was not present in the pleading, the court below's action which did not provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to defend himself/herself as well as an opportunity to defend him/her, is erroneous in the misapprehension of law.

B. In examining a case of request for adjudgment, the National Tax Tribunal may request the claimant to correct at any time during the period of decision in accordance with Articles 81 and 63 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it is sufficient to inform the other party of the purport of request for correction in writing, orally, or by telephone, in accordance with the principle of arrival regarding the effective effect of expression of intent.

Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 81 and 63 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu150 Delivered on September 9, 1980

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 80Gu199 delivered on July 28, 1981

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below should have received a request for adjudgment on March 15, 1980 with respect to the disposition of the person liable for duty payment. The plaintiff should have received a request for correction set by 25 days in June 10 in the corresponding year, and the Director of the National Tax Tribunal shall send a request for correction set by 31 days in July 3 in the corresponding year, and the plaintiff shall again send a request for correction set by 29 days in August 7 in the corresponding year, and the first and second requests for correction were received within 6.13 days in the corresponding year and 7.7 days in the corresponding year, and the plaintiff shall have received a notice of correction within 8 days in the corresponding year and 9 days in the corresponding request for adjudgment regardless of the expiration of 8 days in the corresponding request for adjudgment. The plaintiff shall have received a request for correction and correction set by 10 days in the first and second requests for correction and notification within 9 days in the corresponding period for correction and notification. The plaintiff shall also have received a request for correction and correction within 9 days in the corresponding period for correction and notification.

2. The records reveal that the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff received the request for correction of August 7, 1980 from the National Tax Tribunal on August 9 of the same year, as above, the court below did not conclude that the above court below's ex officio ex officio investigation is legitimate, since it is clear that the court below was in accordance with the Han-gu Head of the Dong-gu Post Office's Han-gu Post Office's inquiry report on August 9 of the same year.

However, according to the records, the above fact inquiry was conducted after the conclusion of the hearing of the court below and the reply was not present at the hearing, and it was argued that the response was legally brought within the period of the lawsuit after receiving a request for correction (see the plaintiff's preparatory document of March 10, 1981). In this case, if the response to the fact inquiry was present at the hearing, the plaintiff would have made a counterargument and evidence against it. In this case, even though there was a telephone notice from the National Tax Tribunal of August 7, 1980 about the third demand for correction from the National Tax Tribunal of August 7, 1980, the fact that the inquiry agency should make a decision practically after the expiration of the period of the trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu166, Oct. 13, 1981; 7Nu268, Apr. 12, 197).

3. According to the records, the plaintiff purchased the real estate from the deceased non-party 2 on June 24, 1976 and filed a provisional registration of transfer of ownership on the same day, and the defendant stated the principal registration on June 20, 1977. The defendant stated the non-party 2's personal business tax amount of 1,72,582 won, additional dues of 234,121 won, additional dues of 1978 and additional dues of 2,864,50,524 won (this part is see evidence No. 3-2 of the National Tax Tribunal) and the non-party 2's assertion that the above disposition of transfer of ownership was invalid on the premise that the non-party 1 was not subject to the above disposition of transfer of ownership under the premise that the above disposition of transfer of ownership was invalid as the non-party 2's claim for the above disposition of transfer of ownership without any apparent error in the record (see the above evidence No. 3-18,6372 won, 373,1979).1).2

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges to reverse and remand the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the argument of the theory of the lawsuit that points out this point.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)