Where a written decision is served on a claimant after the period of decision on national tax adjudication expires, the starting point of the period of administrative litigation (=the following day after the period of decision expires)

Where a request for adjudgment on a disposition imposing national taxes is deemed to have been dismissed due to the lapse of the adjudication period, the period of administrative litigation shall begin on the day after the date when the request for adjudgment is deemed to have been dismissed, and the period of request for adjudgment shall not vary since a written decision, etc. was served

Articles 81, 65(5), and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu713 Decided October 22, 1985 (Gong1985, 1559) 88Nu999 Decided July 27, 1986

Mad-dilution

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu4374 delivered on July 4, 1990

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Articles 81, 65(5), and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in a case where a request for a trial against a disposition imposing national taxes is deemed dismissed due to the lapse of the adjudication period, the period of the administrative litigation shall begin from the day after the dismissal is made, and a written decision, etc. is served on the claimant at the expiration of the period, and the period of the trial shall not vary on the ground that the request for a trial is served on the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu999, Jul. 27, 1986; 84Nu713, Oct.

According to the records, since the plaintiff at least made a decision on the disposition of this case on Sep. 21, 1989 (the written request for a trial was received on Sep. 19, 1989, but the written decision on Sep. 21, 1989 stated that a request for a trial was made on Sep. 21, 1989, no right is known because any one is the same) under Articles 81, 65(2) and (5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, unless there are special circumstances, the National Tax Tribunal had to make a decision on the request for a trial within 90 days from the date when the request for a trial was rejected, and it is evident that there was no decision within that period. Thus, the court below should have determined that the plaintiff had an effect on the legitimate decision during the period for the correction of the lawsuit of this case by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations during the period for the correction of the lawsuit of this case.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, 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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)