Whether the disposition of imposing and collecting taxes shall be deemed to have undergone an administrative appeal as necessary prior to the filing of a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disposition where the procedures for a request for evaluation under Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act have been completed (affirmative

In consideration of the provisions of Article 5(1), (3)3, and (4) through (6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 38(1), (3)3, and (4) through (6) of the Customs Act, Article 58(1) and (12) of the Local Tax Act, Articles 43(1), 44, and 46(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Articles 5(1) and 9 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Rules, and Articles 5(1) and 9 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Rule, if a request for examination as prescribed by Article 43(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes has been made through the procedure of appeal, such request shall be deemed to have been made through an administrative appeal as required before filing a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition, as in the case where the disposition was subject to the procedure of appeal under the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 43(1), 44, and 46(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Articles 5(1) and 9 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Regulations, Articles 5(1), 55(3)3, 55(4) through (6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 38(1), 38(3)3, and 38(4) through (6) of the Customs Act, Article 58(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 58(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 58(12) of the Local Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Head of the Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu8267 delivered on August 22, 1990

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff received the notice of tax disposition in this case on April 20, 198 and requested the review of the above disposition on May 18, 198 pursuant to Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act. However, the request for review under the above provision is merely the purport of allowing a person who has an interest in the administrative act of the person subject to audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection to examine the legitimacy or validity of the administrative act of the person subject to audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection to assist the Board of Audit and Inspection in performing its duties and to improve and improve the administrative operation, and it does not constitute a pre-trial procedure of administrative litigation. Accordingly, the lawsuit in this case was dismissed on account of the failure to go through the

However, in consideration of the provisions of Article 5(1), (3)3, and (4) through (6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 38(1), (3)3, and (4) through (6) of the Customs Act, Article 58(1), and (12) of the Local Tax Act, Articles 43(1), 44, and 46(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Articles 5(1), and 9 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Rules, when a request for examination as to the imposition and collection of taxes has been made through the procedure of appeal as prescribed by the above Local Tax Act, it shall be interpreted that it has gone through an administrative appeal as to the relevant disposition prior to filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Nu24, Apr. 25, 1978). However, the judgment of the court below is not appropriate for the Board of Audit and Inspection to seek revocation of the disposition before the Board of Audit and Inspection.

The court below should have judged whether the lawsuit in this case satisfies the requirements of Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act after fully examining whether the plaintiff was notified by the Board of Audit and Inspection of the decision regarding the above request for review made by the Board of Audit and Inspection. Nevertheless, the court below's measure which dismissed the lawsuit in this case on the ground that the lawsuit in this case was unlawful on the ground that it did not reach this point, has erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure of the preceding trial of tax administrative litigation, or in the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations

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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)