출국금지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts, thereby citing this case in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(2) The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the contents asserted by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are additionally examined, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition that was changed in exchange in this court was an abuse of discretionary power).
The Defendant, at the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, issued a disposition prohibiting the Plaintiff from departing from April 22, 2016 to October 21, 2016 on the basis of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, and again issued a disposition extending the period of prohibition from departure from October 17, 2016 to April 21, 2017 on the ground of Article 4-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act, based on the same provision, on the same provision, on April 14, 2017.
AB made it.
"Nos. 1 and 8 of the first instance judgment" shall be written with "Nos. 1, 8, and 44 of the second 14 of the second 14."
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.