A. The Plaintiff was the head of the B Hospital’s Cheongbu Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”) from September 2008 to November 2014 as a doctor in Mabu, and the instant hospital was closed on November 27, 2014 due to the business depression.

The Plaintiff did not pay the wage and salary income tax, etc. imposed and collected on May 31, 2013, which was incurred by the operation of the instant hospital. As of August 2017, the Plaintiff did not pay the national tax of approximately KRW 1.1332 million including additional tax (hereinafter “the national tax in this case”).

B. The Defendant issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure on September 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for prohibition of departure and extension thereof, to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2017, pursuant to Articles 4 and 4-2 (1) of the Immigration Control Act, to the effect that “the Plaintiff is a large or habitual delinquent taxpayer whose list was published frequently and frequently entering or departing from Korea without justifiable grounds.” The Defendant issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure by setting the period from March 3, 2017 to February 28, 2018 from September 1, 2017 to February 27, 2018, during which the instant lawsuit is pending (hereinafter “the instant period of prohibition of departure”) by setting the period of prohibition of departure from Korea from March 3, 2017 to August 31, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The person who actually established and operated the instant hospital is C, and the Plaintiff is merely a hospital hospital employed by C as a person who lends only the name of the business operator of the instant hospital. Therefore, the disposition of the instant national tax imposed on the Plaintiff is unlawful in violation of the substance over form principle, and thus, the disposition of the instant case is unlawful (the first assertion) and thus, is also unlawful (the first assertion).