출국금지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. While engaging in a new construction and sales business of a building under the trade name “B,” the Plaintiff is liable to pay a total of KRW 2,279,843,500 (including additional charges) of value-added tax as of September 30, 2013 through April 30, 2015 when the payment deadline is based on the return of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax (2,279,843,50) on April 8, 2018, and total of KRW 5,809,40 (including additional charges) of global income tax on September 30, 2017 with the payment deadline of KRW 2,285,652,90.
(hereinafter “instant arrears”). B.
The Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Immigration Control Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s delinquency in arrears occurred. On July 3, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea to December 26, 2017, pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act.
C. Since then, pursuant to Article 4-2 of the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure extended on December 20, 2017 to June 26, 2018, and extended the period of prohibition of departure extended on July 9, 2018 by December 26, 2018.
(hereinafter) The Defendant’s disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure on July 9, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] / [The fact that there is no dispute, Party A’s entries in Gap’s 1, 2, 6, 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a co-owner, who holds shares in subparagraph 1/6 of this subparagraph, located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu, and is a member of the Dmera reconstruction association established to implement the Dmera Project (hereinafter “instant project”). The Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable for the loans borrowed by F, a company F, an agent of the implementation of the instant project, as a member of the Dmera Association. The Plaintiff’s assertion was low in the sales performance of the newly constructed building according to the instant project, and the executor was unable to repay the above loans.