(a) If the decision of tax reduction is notified by the tax authority after the period for decision on the request for national tax reduction expires, the legality of administrative litigation instituted 60 days after the period for decision expires (negative);

B. Whether an administrative action, in the sense of declaring the invalidity of an administrative disposition, must meet the requirements for filing a lawsuit seeking the revocation (affirmative)

A. If a decision on a request for a judgment is not received within 90 days, which is the statutory period, from the date of the request for a judgment on the disposition of imposing national taxes, the administrative litigation filed after the lapse of 60 days from the date of the above statutory period, is unlawful even if the tax authority received a decision on the reduction of tax after the illegal period.

(b) even in the case of an administrative litigation claiming the revocation in the sense of declaring the invalidity of an administrative disposition, the procedure of the previous trial and the compliance with the filing period of the lawsuit must meet the requirements for the revocation

(a) Articles 81, 65(2), and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu708 delivered on February 28, 1989 (Gong1989,538). Supreme Court Decision 84Nu175 delivered on May 29, 1984 (Gong1984,1208) 87Nu219 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1987,159)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and four plaintiffs, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu13228 delivered on June 28, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, pursuant to Articles 81, 65(2), and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if an administrative litigation against a disposition imposing national taxes is not notified of a decision on the request for adjudgment within 90 days after the statutory period has expired, the court below rejected the request by the plaintiffs within 60 days after the above statutory period has expired, although the plaintiffs filed a request for adjudication on June 2, 1989, but the decision was served on September 2, 1989, which was last September 31, 1989, and the warden received on October 31, 1989, the 90 days after the request for adjudication was passed on August 31, 1989, which became 60 days after the date of request for adjudication. Thus, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case, which was filed after the expiration of the statutory period after October 30, 1989, was not in compliance with the statutory period.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not justified and there is no ground to charge the error of the judgment below as a different opinion.

2. In a case where an administrative action is filed in the sense of declaring the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course, the procedure of the previous trial and the compliance with the period of filing the lawsuit shall be met (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu175, May 29, 1984; 87Nu219, Jun. 9, 1987). Thus, as determined by the court below, if the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of taxation by the plaintiffs is unlawful in short of the period of filing the lawsuit and fails to meet the requirements of filing the lawsuit, even if the plaintiffs' claim seeking its revocation is made in the sense of declaring the invalidity of the disposition of taxation as a matter of course, it shall not be exempted from dismissal as an illegal lawsuit which was filed after the expiration of

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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.