The legitimacy of rejection of the request for review where the review is not notified within the review period (30 days) under Article 58 (2) of the Local Tax Act;

According to Article 58(6) of the Local Tax Act, in the case of a request for reexamination or a request for reexamination, if it is not possible to make a decision within 30 days from the necessity of the investigation, it may be extended again by 45 days by notifying the person who made the request for reexamination or reexamination. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the request for reexamination was dismissed immediately on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive a notice of the extension of the period of review by November 2, 1981, which is the first review period of the Do governor.

Article 58 of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu350 Decided March 11, 1980

Plaintiff

The head of Seo-gu in Gwangju City

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Gu33 delivered on August 10, 1982

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

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff filed a request to the Minister of Home Affairs for re-examination of August 14 of 1981 with regard to the property tax of this case and the detailed defense disposition of this case on August 13, 1981, and 8.27 of the same year after being served with the defendant 9.25 of the same year, and the branch office of this case was decided on November 3, 1981 and delivered a notice of the above decision to the Governor before 19.1981, Nov. 8, 1981, the plaintiff again filed a request for re-examination to the Minister of Home Affairs on December 26, 1981 through the 198th 196th 196th 196th 196th 196th 196th 198 of the Local Tax Act.

However, according to Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act, in the case of paragraphs (2) and (5) of this Article, if it is impossible to make a decision within 30 days from the necessity of investigation, it may be extended again by notifying the person who made a request for review or re-audit. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff was dismissed immediately because he did not receive notification of the extension decision period from the Do governor up to November 2, 1981, which is the first examination period of the Do governor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Nu350, Mar. 11, 1980). According to Article 58 (2) and (5) of the Local Tax Act, the period of the request for review (No. 6-1, No. 108, the records No. 108) which was attached to the records, and the court below's determination of the extension of the period of the period of the request for review cannot be deemed to have been made ex officio by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)