Time to determine whether the request for examination submitted to the subordinate institution of the legitimate transit institution and sent to the subsequent agency is complied with;

Where a written request for examination is submitted to a subordinate institution other than a legitimate diesel institution, it shall be determined whether the period for request for examination is observed based on the time of delivery to a legitimate diesel institution

Articles 58(1) and 58(3) of the Local Tax Act; Article 46 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11571 of Dec. 31, 1984)

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu384 Decided November 22, 1983, 83Nu587 Decided June 12, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 84Nu521 Decided July 9, 1985, 86Nu280 Decided July 8, 1986

Dagra Co., Ltd.

Seogpo City

Gwangju High Court Decision 84Gu59 delivered on January 23, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11571 of Dec. 31, 1984), a person who intends to request an examination under Article 58 (3) of the Act shall submit a written request for examination to the Minister of Home Affairs or to the Do governor via the head of the local government who made the decision of reexamination. According to Article 46-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a request for reexamination or reexamination under Article 58 (1) and (3) of the same Decree shall be deemed to have been filed with the decision-making agency by receiving it within the said period. Thus, if the written request for examination is submitted to the subordinate agency other than the above legitimate transit agency, it shall be determined whether the period of the request for examination is observed as of the time it was sent to the legitimate transit agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu521, Jul. 9, 1985; 83Nu587, Jun. 1283, 1983).

Therefore, as determined by the court below, if the plaintiff received a written decision of dismissal on the request for reexamination from the Jeju Do Governor on December 10, 1983 and submitted a written request for reexamination to the defendant who is not a legitimate transit agency on January 5, 1984 and received it to the Jeju Do Governor, which is a legitimate transit agency, the above written request for reexamination was received from the Jeju Do Governor, the above written request for reexamination shall not be deemed to be unlawful because it is apparent that the time period for the request for reexamination under Article 58 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3757, Dec. 24, 1984) has already expired.

Article 65 of the above Local Tax Act provides that the Framework Act on National Taxes and the National Tax Collection Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the imposition and collection of local taxes except as otherwise provided for in this Act and other Acts. However, as long as Article 46-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Local Tax Act is applicable to the procedure for objection, there is no room for applying the latter part of Article 62 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or the latter part of Article 69 (2) of the above Act even

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)