On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff is delinquent in national taxes of KRW 444,250,000 in total, as follows:

(hereinafter “instant national tax”). (A) On August 31, 2009, on August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to prohibit departure on October 11, 2012, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on the following grounds: (a) on August 31, 2010, 105, 578, 578 56,379 16,379 161,957, 628 1,628 1,9365, 564 181,182 94, 57729, 291,351, 352, 94, 9154, 250

On October 24, 2012, based on Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea from October 24, 2012 to April 23, 2013 on the basis of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act. The Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure on three occasions thereafter, and again issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure to the Plaintiff from October 24, 2014 to April 23, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The grounds for requesting the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to prohibit departure to the Defendant are as follows.

The plaintiff's reason for the reason is that the tax claim cannot be secured due to the lack of property owned by the public register as a habitual delinquent taxpayer due to the reason for the reason that the amount of delinquent taxes is four cases, the actual place of residence is unclear, and the reason for the request for prohibition of departure is not sufficient until the date of the request for prohibition of departure. The plaintiff's reason for the reason is that there is no dispute, and there is no ground for recognition that there is no possibility that the tax claim will be lost in the case of the flight abroad with concealed property. The plaintiff's argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff established and operated B for the purpose of the business related to the real estate of this case, and operated B with the purpose of the business related to the real estate of this case, and the plaintiff could not repay funds borrowed to his relative and neighboring people due to the failure of the business.

Accordingly, the transfer income tax was not paid in the process of accord and satisfaction with the real estate owned by the plaintiff.