A. On May 2016, the Defendant first issued a disposition of prohibition of departure (from May 10, 2016) against the Plaintiff, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and thereafter issued a disposition of extending the prohibition of departure over several times pursuant to Article 4-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act. On October 21, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of extending the prohibition of departure from the Republic of Korea from November 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The details of the Plaintiff’s arrears revealed in the request for extension of the period of prohibition of departure on March 2019 by the Commissioner of National Tax Service are as follows.

On December 31, 2013, 658, 394, 302, 657, 355, 737 value-added tax on December 31, 2013, 529, 1212, 292, 477, 236, 643 global income tax on December 31, 2013; the difference in the aggregate column and additional charges of the same item of tax on global income tax and the amount stated on November 30, 2015; the difference in the amount stated on the aggregate column and additional charges of the same item of tax on global income tax on December 31, 2013; the amount submitted by the Defendant as the current status of arrears on September 2019, which was written under the clerical entry in the evidence of subparagraph 9.

389,503 Transfer Income Tax on November 30, 2017: The aggregate of 2,720,7481, 206 474 total sum of 2,720,748 1,108,194 982,357 / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 9; the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) Plaintiff B (hereinafter “B”) around 2013.

In the process of transferring the property, most of the assignee’s nonperformance of duty, and forced to pay taxes, and there was no specific property at present, and there was no concern that compulsory execution would be difficult by capital flight of the property overseas. The Defendant, even though the Plaintiff did not have any possibility to flee the property overseas, was disposing of this case solely to make psychological pressure on the Plaintiff, and thus, was in violation of the discretionary authority. (2) The Defendant, the Plaintiff donated D real estate to his/her husband, and concealed the sales price of E real estate to his/her family members and one household.