출국금지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. As of July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff imposed the global income tax of KRW 189,675,160 (hereinafter “instant national tax”) with the payment period on April 30, 2006, on the disposition that the Plaintiff was deemed to have served as the representative director, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 71,412,630 out of the said tax amount from July 26, 2006 to December 29, 2014. However, as of July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 245,201,570, totaling the principal tax and the additional dues to the Plaintiff.
B. On November 4, 2016, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea, and the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea on November 4, 2016 from November 4, 2016 to May 2, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the period of prohibition from the Republic of Korea extended from May 3, 2017 to November 2, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 17, Eul evidence 1 through 6, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As to global income tax imposed in 2006, the Plaintiff paid KRW 71,412,630 as all available assets and income so far, and the Plaintiff was seized as a result of a disposition on default (hereinafter “B”).
(B) There is no property other than the shares of the Plaintiff, and the amount of income gained as the representative director of the B is merely a insufficient standard to maintain livelihood, and there is no particular property for the Plaintiff’s family members, and there is no concern that the Plaintiff may make it difficult to enforce compulsory execution, such as having the Plaintiff escape property overseas by departing from the Republic of Korea. (2) The Plaintiff, while holding office as the representative director of B, who is exporting to China, was frequently departing from China for the past reason of business, was frequently visiting China for the sake of B’s business. However, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case