출국금지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is recognized in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
2. The 3rd page "B stock company, C stock company, etc." shall be changed to "B stock company, etc.".
Two pages 9 to 11 shall be advanced as follows:
The disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure by September 28, 2017, and the period of prohibition of departure continues to be extended thereafter, and finally, on March 28, 2018, the disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure by Plaintiffs from March 29, 2018 to September 28, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure by March 28, 2018”).
1)On 2 pages 12 of "A", the phrase "As. 1 and 2" shall be deemed to read "As. 1, 18, 28".
In 3rd 14, "211,309,690 won out of national taxes" shall be "419,463,581 won out of national taxes (including additional dues)."
3rd 15 parallel "520,680,990 won" shall be "522,090,430 won".
The 6th parallel "23,1919,200 won" shall be "23,191,200 won".
In the 6th 9th 9th 9th 9th , “The amount of the earned income of the J in 2016 is only KRW 5,113,90,000” (On the other hand, according to the evidence evidence No. 23, it can be recognized that the amount of the earned income of the J in 2017 constitutes KRW 32,906,000,000,000 per month, it is difficult for the J to fully cope with the interest of KRW 2,00,000 per month).
6.9 pages 6. The following shall be added:
【E) The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the remittance of KRW 23,191,200 to Indonesia on August 2006 was made by the request for remittance from Indonesia, the Plaintiff worked together in Austria. However, considering that there is no objective data by which the source of the above remittance can be known, it is insufficient to recognize it only with the descriptions of KRW 24-1 and KRW 2, in light of the fact that there is no objective data to identify the source of the above remittance.