Method of Appeal and Administrative Litigation against Notice Disposition

If a person subject to a disposition of notification has an objection to such disposition, he/she may be tried by a judicial agency by selecting public officials engaged in taxation because he/she fails to implement such disposition, so the remedy for unfair disposition of notification shall be governed by special provisions. Thus, the disposition of notification shall not be subject to administrative litigation.

Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 9 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 1 of the Juvenile Reformatory Act

Plaintiff et al. (Attorney Oin-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seoul Customs Office Maximum Accommodation

Seoul High Court Decision 55Do262 delivered on March 12, 1956

The final appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff et al. is that the decision of the court below is without merit because the plaintiff's notification disposition was made on the date and time of the plaintiff's request. Article 239 of the Customs Act provides that the head of the customs office may notify a customs offender of the reason and shall pay an amount equivalent to a fine or a minor fine, or an amount equivalent to a surcharge to the head of the customs office. Article 244 of the same Act provides that if the customs offender is notified of the notice, the head of the customs office shall file an accusation within five days from the date of receipt of the notice disposition. Thus, it is merely that the head of the customs office's prior notification disposition becomes a condition for the imposition of the customs offender, and that the person subject to the notification disposition is not subject to the disposition of notification disposition of the plaintiff et al., which is the result of the decision of the court below, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the disposition of notification disposition of the plaintiff et al., which is the result of the decision of the court below's ex officio and cannot be justified.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)