A. Whether the grounds for rejection judgment are appropriate in the grounds for appeal asserted that there is no point of view as to the grounds for rejection judgment and that it is a taxation by non-taxation authority

(b) Criteria for determining whether a request for examination submitted to a subordinate institution of a legitimate transit institution and later sent to such institution complies with the period;

(c) Whether the requirements for transfer are satisfied, in cases where an examination request was filed with an inappropriate examination request and an examination is conducted;

A. The grounds of appeal purporting to the effect that the judgment of the court below which rejected the lawsuit on the grounds that it was unlawful because it did not go through the procedures for the request for review during the previous trial, and that the taxation disposition was unlawful by a person who is not the

(b) Where a written request for examination is submitted to an agency subordinate thereto, other than a legitimate transit agency, the determination as to whether the period for the request for examination is observed shall be made based on the time when it

C. Despite the fact that an illegal request for review was filed, it is invalid as a legitimate review, and such a request for review cannot be deemed as satisfying the pre-assessment requirement, which serves as the premise of an administrative litigation.

A. Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 395, 367 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 58(1) and 58(3) of the Local Tax Act; Articles 46(2) and 46-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11571, Dec. 31, 1984); Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu169 delivered on June 12, 1984. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu384 delivered on November 22, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu257 delivered on April 24, 1984

[Defendant-Appellant] Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Busan Special Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu13 delivered on June 26, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (the supplementary appellate brief is filed after the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the lawsuit of this case on the ground that it was unlawful because the lawsuit of this case did not go through the examination request procedure in the previous trial procedure, and it was unlawful. The ground of appeal No. 1 does not relate to the reasoning of the judgment below, but to the purport that the tax disposition of this case was unlawful since it was conducted by a person who is not the taxation authority, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal (see

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Since the observance of the pre-trial procedure in administrative litigation is a matter of ex officio investigation, the court below should first decide ex officio whether the pre-trial procedure was lawful, and then proceed to a trial on the merits where the pre-trial procedure was lawful (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu359 delivered on May 22, 1984).

Meanwhile, 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 a review under the provisions of Article 58 (3) of the Act shall submit a request for review to the Minister of Home Affairs or to the Do governor through the head of the local government who made the decision of reinvestigation. According to Article 46-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, a request for reexamination or review under the provisions of Article 58 (1) and (3) of the Act shall be deemed to have been filed with the decision-making agency by receiving it within the period of time. Thus, if the above request for review was submitted to a subordinate agency other than the above legitimate transit agency, it shall be determined whether the period of request for review is observed as of the time when it was sent to the legitimate transit agency (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu384 of Nov. 22, 1983).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)