In the event that the examination request institution is wrong, the criteria for determining whether the period of examination request is observed.

In making a request for examination under Article 58 (3) of the Local Tax Act, if a request for examination is submitted to an institution subordinate to such institution which is not a legitimate diesel institution, the determination as to whether the period for such request for examination is observed shall be made on the basis

Article 58 (3) of the Local Tax Act, Articles 46 (2), 46-2 (1), and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 46-2 (2) of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Nu22 delivered on May 25, 1976, 78Nu430 Delivered on February 13, 1979

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Mapo-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu493 delivered on May 25, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, a person who intends to make a request for review under Article 58 (3) of the Act shall submit a request for review to the Minister of Home Affairs or 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 Local Tax Act, a request for reexamination or review under Article 58 (1) and (3) of the Act shall be deemed to have been filed by the decision-making agency by receiving it within the period of time.

Therefore, if a written request for examination is submitted to an agency subordinate to the above legitimate transit institution, it is the opinion of party members to determine whether the period for the request for examination is observed based on the time when it is sent to the legitimate transit institution (see respectively, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 76Nu22, May 25, 1976; 78Nu430, Feb. 13, 1979).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff requested a reinvestigation under Article 58 of the Local Tax Act on the disposition of imposition of acquisition tax of this case by December 17, 1980, but was served with the decision of rejection of the request for reinvestigation on March 20, 1981 within the decision period, and submitted a request for reexamination to the defendant who was not a legitimate transit agency, and received it to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor Mayor, a legitimate transit agency, 4.20. Thus, when the above request for reexamination was received by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, it shall not be deemed that the above request for reexamination was unlawful because it is apparent that the period of request for reexamination under Article 58 of the Local Tax Act already passed.

Since the provisions of the latter part of Article 62(2) and the latter part of Article 69(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes are newly established on December 31, 1981 after the examination procedure of this case was conducted, there is no room for applying the examination procedure of this case to this case.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below to the purport above is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the transfer procedure of administrative litigation such as 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.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)