출국금지기간연장처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 28, 2015, the Defendant was obligated by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service to pay KRW 1,05,117,00,00 (i.e., customs duties of KRW 388,213,210,210, additional duties of KRW 341,096,360, and KRW 108,975,440, and the head of the competent customs office is unable to secure claims, such as customs duties, due to the lack of discovery of the Plaintiff’s property, and the Plaintiff’s entry into and departure from Korea without payment of customs duties, etc. on several occasions, and on February 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) requested the prohibition of departure from the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Plaintiff is likely to evade the disposition of default; (b) on February 1, 2015, the period of prohibition of departure from the Plaintiff (from February 1, 2015 to 315).
B. After that, on December 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the prohibition period of departure with respect to the Plaintiff from January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017.
(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s financial status of B, which the Plaintiff operated, caused the Plaintiff to be in arrears with customs duties, etc. that have rapidly aggravated since 2008; (b) there were circumstances to consider the circumstances of the delinquency; (c) the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt due to an excessive debt; and (d) the Plaintiff was unable to seek a stable workplace that is able to earn regular income thereafter; and (e) the Plaintiff would not have any property to conceal or depart from the Republic of Korea; and (e) the Plaintiff would be unable to be employed for the Vietnam subsidiaries operated by EFFS Co., Ltd. due to the disposition of prohibition of departure; and (e) the Plaintiff would have experienced difficulties in living due to the said disposition compared to the public