Cases of incomplete hearing on the procedure of the previous trial

The decision that the lawsuit was not filed within a legitimate period without examining the date received by the Do Governor, the decision-making agency, through the market through which the request for review of local tax was filed, and whether there was a notification of the extension decision of the decision-making agency thereafter is insufficient to review the decision and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Article 58 of the Local Tax Act, Articles 46 and 46-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Korean Fertilizer Corporation

Ulsan City Mayor, Attorney Lee Sung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 79Gu30 delivered on October 16, 1979

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

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the evidence and the purport of the oral argument, the court below found that the plaintiff filed a request for re-audit to 10.13 of the same year against the defendant on Sep. 15, 1978. After receiving a request for re-audit from November 4 of the same year, the plaintiff filed a request for re-audit again to 11.1 of the same year, and then revised the request for re-audit to 12.4 of the same year upon receiving a request for re-audit from the 1979.12.25 of the same year. The branch of the above branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the case. Accordingly, if the Gyeongnam Do governor filed a request for re-audit as before the plaintiff's request for re-audit under Article 58 (6) of the Local Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the period for re-audit should be dismissed within 40 days from the date of the request for re-appeal.

However, according to Article 46 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, a person who intends to request an examination under the provisions of Article 58 (3) of the Local Tax Act shall make a request for reexamination to the Do Governor through the head of the local government (U.S. market where such request is made) along with evidential documents attached to the written request stating the matters prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. Article 46-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that the request for reexamination or examination under the provisions of Article 58 (1) and (3) of the Local Tax Act shall be deemed to have been made by the institution in receipt of the request within the period prescribed by the Local Tax Act. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the period for correction under the provisions of Article 58 (4) of the Local Tax Act shall not be counted from the date of receipt by the institution in receipt of the decision, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article.

However, since it is obvious that the plaintiff corrected documentary evidence at the request of the Gyeongnam Do governor, which is an authority of Dec. 4, 1978, at least, it would be received from Nov. 11, 1978 to Dec. 4, 1978. If we examined further whether there was a notification of the decision to extend the period of decision, the plaintiff's request for review as of Nov. 11, 1978 was made within the legitimate period, but it would be possible to find that the plaintiff's request for review as of Nov. 11, 1978 was made after the lapse of 12.21 in that year. Accordingly, the plaintiff's request for review as of Feb. 16, 1979, which was filed after the peremptory period of 30 days, was rejected, which affected the conclusion of each judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the provisions of Article 58 of the Local Tax Act and Articles 46 and 46-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)