Framework Act on National Taxes — Appeal Procedures and Mandatory Exhaustion
Articles are cited from the version in force on 11 August 2026 (Act No. 21860), checked on 20 September 2026.
You cannot go straight to court
The previous chapters covered how tax is set, corrected and refunded. This chapter covers how to challenge a disposition as wrong.
The starting point is Article 56(2):
An administrative lawsuit against an unlawful disposition prescribed in Article 55 may not be filed without going through a request for review or adjudication under this Act and a decision on it, notwithstanding the main text of Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.
The Administrative Litigation Act’s rule is optional exhaustion: one may sue without first going through an administrative appeal. Tax law reverses that rule. This is called mandatory exhaustion.
Who challenges what (Article 55)
Subject matter
A person whose rights or interests are infringed by a disposition under this Act or the tax laws that is unlawful or unjust, or by not receiving a necessary disposition, may file a request.
Not only “unlawful” but also “unjust” is covered. Administrative litigation deals only with unlawfulness, while the appeal procedure also reviews the appropriateness of discretion. A case that can be won here may be lost in court.
Three exclusions (proviso to paragraph 1)
| Item | Disposition | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A notice disposition under the Tax Crime Procedure Act | If complied with, the case ends; if not, it is referred for prosecution and goes to criminal proceedings. The real contest is in the criminal court |
| 2 | A disposition for which a review request was filed under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, or a disposition on that request | It is already being challenged through another channel |
| 3 | Impositions of administrative fines under this Act and the tax laws | The procedure under the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order applies |
Item 1 connects directly to Article 15 of the Tax Crime Procedure Act. A notice disposition, once complied with, ends the matter under double jeopardy; if not complied with, it leads to a criminal complaint. The structure already contains the opportunity to contest.
Interested parties may also file (paragraph 2)
Some people may file even though the disposition was not addressed to them:
- those who received a payment notice as secondary taxpayers;
- those bearing property-based tax liability, such as holders of security by transfer under Article 42, who received a payment notice;
- persons with property-based tax liability under the Value-Added Tax Act and the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act;
- guarantors;
- others specified by presidential decree.
The secondary and property-based tax liability of chapter 3 leads here. Someone made to bear another’s tax is given a way to contest that tax itself.
The three routes and how they relate
An objection is optional (Article 55(3))
It may be filed before a request for review or adjudication. It is something one may do, not something one must do.
However, dispositions the Commissioner of the National Tax Service investigated, decided or handled, or should have, are not subject to objection, since that would mean asking the same body again.
Review and adjudication are alternatives (Article 55(9))
A request for review and a request for adjudication may not both be filed for the same disposition.
| Request for review | Request for adjudication | |
|---|---|---|
| Deciding body | Commissioner of the National Tax Service (deliberation by the National Tax Review Committee) | Tax Tribunal (tribunal meetings and joint meetings) |
| Affiliation | National Tax Service | Under the Prime Minister |
| Basis | Articles 61–66-2 | Articles 67–80-2 |
The difference is that adjudication is decided by a body outside the tax authority.
No appeal against dispositions on appeals (paragraphs 5 and 6)
No objection, review or adjudication may be filed against a disposition on a request for review or adjudication. This prevents endless loops.
There is one exception: against the disposition of the original authority following a reinvestigation decision, a request for review or adjudication may be filed with the body that made the reinvestigation decision (proviso to paragraph 5). Reinvestigation decisions are covered below.
The 90 days recur
| Stage | Period | Article |
|---|---|---|
| Filing a request for review | Within 90 days of learning of the disposition (receiving notice) | Article 61(1) |
| Request for review after an objection | Within 90 days of receiving notice of the objection decision | Article 61(2) |
| Filing a request for adjudication | Within 90 days of learning of the disposition | Article 68(1) |
| Decision on a request for review | Within 90 days of receiving the request | Article 65(2) |
| Filing an administrative lawsuit | Within 90 days of receiving notice of the decision | Article 56(3) |
Three safeguards attach to these 90 days.
- Special rule for postal filing — if sent by post before the deadline but delivered after it, the request is deemed lawfully filed on the last day (Article 61(3)).
- Unavoidable reasons — if a reason under Article 6 prevented filing in time, the request may be filed within 14 days after the reason ceases (Article 61(4)).
- Suit on no answer — if notice is not received within the decision period, an administrative lawsuit may be filed from the day after the decision period ends, even before notice (proviso to Article 56(3)).
The third repeats a structure seen in earlier chapters: the two-month non-response for requests for correction (Article 45-2(3)) and the deemed approval after 10 days in the National Tax Collection Act. It is the same principle: the authority’s silence must not trap the taxpayer.
Three decisions, and a fourth (Article 65)
| Item | Decision | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dismissal without merits | Review request filed after (or on the same day as) an adjudication request, time limit passed, not corrected within the correction period, request otherwise unlawful, etc. |
| 2 | Rejection | The request is found to be without grounds |
| 3, main text | Acceptance — decision to cancel or correct, or to make the necessary disposition | The request is found to have grounds |
| 3, proviso | Reinvestigation decision | Further investigation, such as verifying facts, is needed to cancel or correct |
Reinvestigation decisions (item 3 proviso, paragraphs 5 and 6)
This is an intermediate form, neither acceptance nor rejection. It says: “You may be right, so the original authority should investigate again and act on the result.”
The original authority must investigate within 60 days of the reinvestigation decision, limited to the scope stated in the operative part of the decision, and cancel, correct or make the necessary disposition accordingly (paragraph 5). The scope limit matters: reinvestigation cannot be used as a pretext to widen the audit.
However, in cases set by presidential decree, such as when the facts confirmed by the reinvestigation differ from the requester’s claims, the original disposition need not be cancelled or corrected (paragraph 6, added in 2022).
The correction period is not counted in the 90-day decision period (paragraph 4).
The requester cannot end up worse off
Article 65-3 on the review side was added only in 2018, belatedly matching what already existed for adjudication (Article 79).
Effect of decisions (Article 80)
A decision on a request for adjudication binds the relevant administrative authorities (paragraph 1). Once a decision is made, the authority must immediately make the necessary disposition in accordance with the purport of the decision (paragraph 2).
Without binding force, a decision would be merely a recommendation. This article completes the appeal procedure as a procedure.
The flow
Disposition → (90 days) objection [optional] → (90 days) review or adjudication → (decision within 90 days) → (90 days) administrative lawsuit
Whatever the starting point, one of review or adjudication must be gone through before reaching court, and the requester’s position does not worsen along the way.
What remains
- Pre-assessment review under Article 81-15 challenges a disposition before it is made. Its timing differs from the after-the-fact appeals in this chapter, and it connects to Article 48(2)3(a) in the previous chapter (50% penalty-tax reduction when the decision and notice period is exceeded).
- Exclusion and recusal of tax adjudicators (Article 73) and the composition of tribunal meetings and joint meetings (Article 72) are not covered.
- Article 55-2 is a special rule on counting periods while an international transfer price adjustment procedure is under way.
The next chapter covers taxpayers’ rights (Article 81-2 onward): the limits of tax audits and pre-assessment review.
References
- Korea Law Information Center, Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 55, 56, 61, 65, 65-2, 65-3, 66, 66-2, 68, 69, 79, 80 and 80-2 (in force 11 August 2026, Act No. 21860; checked 2026-09-20)
OIYO Editorial
Editorial DeskThe OIYO editorial desk researches money, law, lifestyle, and self-understanding topics against primary sources and public statistics. Every piece carries source notes and is reviewed on a regular cycle for accuracy and usefulness.