출국금지처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 21, 2019, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure (from February 21, 2019 to August 18, 2019; hereinafter “the first disposition of prohibition of departure”) against the Plaintiff on the grounds of delinquency in national tax, and issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure twice. On August 12, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure from August 12, 2020 to February 18, 2021 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
Value-added tax on January 27, 2017, 43, 991,00 19,399,940, 63,390, 940, and 940-added tax on March 1, 2017, 62,757, 207, 27, 399, 590, 90, 156, 710 global income tax on August 15, 2018, 78,372,090, 709, 709, 4209, 95,081, 510 global income tax on 510, 510 global income tax on October 7, 2019, 7,461, 970, 671, 5308, 5030 (won)
B. As of July 7, 2020, the taxes in arrears of the Plaintiff is as follows.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was on January 2016, the Plaintiff lent the Plaintiff’s name at the request of the branch manager, and the Plaintiff was subject to the imposition of value-added tax, income tax, etc. regarding the said business and did not pay national taxes.
However, the plaintiff's family living in Korea and with respect to the pet purchase agency business operated by the plaintiff, only frequent overseas departure and transfer from Korea is not likely to escape or escape from Korea.
In addition, the plaintiff's purchase agency business for the pet dog is purchasing the pet dog from the buyer of the pet dog in a foreign country at the request of the domestic buyer. Although it is necessary to depart from the country for the pet dog in a foreign country and there is a need to depart from the country for the pet dog in a clerical error, due to the disposition of this case, it is hindered in the purchase agency business for pet dog.
Therefore, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff is against the intent of the prohibition of departure.