출국금지기간연장처분취소
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) From March 7, 2018 to September 6, 2018, the term of prohibition of departure was extended from September 7, 2018 to March 6, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The term of prohibition of departure from September 7, 2018 to March 6, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the term of prohibition of departure from the Republic of Korea”). The term of prohibition of departure from the Republic of Korea extended from September 7, 2018 to August 31, 2019.”
2 pages 18 "Ap. 1, 2, and 3" shall be understood as "Ap. 1, 2, 3, 11, and 14."
The 4th 7rd 7rd 7rd 7rd 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 9th 9th 9th 11th 14th 14th 14th 14th 10
The defendant of the 7th parallel "the head of the tax office of the same orchard" shall be the "the head of the tax office of the same orchard."
8 pages 9 to 12 shall be advanced as follows:
No. 15 and 16, the plaintiff asserts that the income of No. 16 is the income of No. 1, and the plaintiff bears all the expenses for departure and study in France. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that there is sufficient sufficient ability for the plaintiff to bear or pay all the expenses for children, including living expenses and study expenses, and all the expenses for departure from Korea, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence (the plaintiff claims that the income is not specified because D is a house sale business, etc.). The evidence No. 16 is merely a document verifying the payment of global income tax for the year 2017, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that D was or may have been able to bear all the above expenses before or after the transfer.
In addition, the plaintiff asserts that he used the transfer price for the land located in emulsified City with B's debt repayment and operation fund, but there is no objective evidence to acknowledge this.
Considering the above circumstances, the Plaintiff is above.