출국금지처분취소
1. Revocation of a disposition of prohibition of departure issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 4, 2017 (from January 4, 2017 to July 3, 2017).
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is delinquent in paying approximately KRW 798,531,000 (including additional charges) in total, including global income tax as of January 2017.
B. On January 4, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition prohibiting departure (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the grounds that national taxes are delinquent, pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, from January 4, 2017 to July 3, 2017, pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the same Act.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lost his/her entire property due to his/her business failure and became a bad credit holder, and thus, he/she was inevitably unable to pay his/her tax, and there is no risk that his/her property may escape abroad. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful because it did not meet the requirements for prohibition of departure, or was abused or abused
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. In full view of the purport of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 1-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, Articles 6 and 6-5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, prohibition of departure on the grounds of a tax default of at least 50 million won, including national taxes, is mainly aimed at preventing a delinquent taxpayer from making it difficult for him/her to enforce compulsory execution due to a delinquent taxpayer’s escape of property overseas by departing from the Republic of Korea through departure. However, it is not for a delinquent taxpayer to voluntarily pay taxes due to psychological pressure by securing his/her personal illness or restricting his/her freedom of departure. Thus, a disposition of prohibition of departure on the sole basis of a tax default on a certain amount of money without checking whether there is a concern over property overseas shall not violate the principle of guaranteeing fundamental rights under the Constitution or be allowed in light of the principle of prohibition of excess.
At this time, the property is overseas.