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 for this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the first instance court Decision 2nd 10 to 13th 2nd 13th am “(B), the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff in succession pursuant to Article 4-2 of the Immigration Control Act, and the period of prohibition of departure on May 18, 2018 was extended until November 10, 2018, and the period of prohibition of departure on November 9, 2018 was extended again until May 10, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and “15” was added following “10” in the 19th am.
In the plaintiff's family relations register of 4th 6th 7th Ga, I are registered as his spouse, J (1980), K (1985), L (197) and M (192's children).
“Around 14 and 15, J, which is the Plaintiff’s child, is the JJ. . 9. 5 and 6. The Plaintiff’s child K, which was the Plaintiff’s child, deleted from 2000 to 2012, “A and K, who continued to work in the United States for a long time,” and “I andK,” in the 19th sentence, are changed to “I”. The 10th two parallels from “I” to “I”.
"The parts up to" are as follows:
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff could have resided in his mother’s U-owned building without rent and live with U’s support, but did not conceal property. In fact, the Plaintiff merely registered Chokin J and K as his child in the family relations register and that W, who is his father, bears his living expenses, educational expenses, etc., and thus, there is no concern for the Plaintiff to escape his property through it.
However, while the transfer value of the real estate transferred by the Plaintiff reaches approximately KRW 3.6 billion in total, the Plaintiff only presented the use and use of some of them.