출국금지기간연장처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition suspending the extension of prohibition of departure on May 30, 2014 to the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, from around 2006 to around 2008, served as the representative director of Company B (hereinafter “instant company”). The Plaintiff was delinquent in paying global income tax, corporate tax, value-added tax, etc. for the year 2004 to 2007 related to the instant company, and thus, failed to pay the national tax of KRW 486,654,340 as of April 15, 2014 (i.e., principal tax amount of KRW 294,214,000, additional tax of KRW 192,40,000).
B. On May 30, 2012, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff (from May 30, 2012 to November 29, 2012) on the basis of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, and extended the period of prohibition of departure on three occasions thereafter.
C. Around May 2014, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to extend the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from May 30, 2014 to November 29, 2014 to the Plaintiff based on Article 4-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act on May 30, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). (No dispute exists with recognition basis, entry in Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion ① The purpose of the disposition of prohibition of departure on the ground of national tax in arrears is to prevent a delinquent taxpayer from having difficulties in compulsory execution due to a delinquent taxpayer's departure from the Republic of Korea to escape property overseas, and thus, there is no property flight intention to the plaintiff. ② The plaintiff has frequent entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea before the disposition of prohibition of departure was rendered, but it is not for the plaintiff to escape property overseas, and it is not for the business of providing advice on the design and manufacturing process of clothes in the company located in China, and it is not for the plaintiff to escape property overseas, and it is for the plaintiff's family members to use advisory fees and living expenses.