1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts and the part concerning which the plaintiff emphasized at the court of first instance or claimed an additional claim, and thus, citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Other matters alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if all of the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial are examined, the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable). [The part to be dismissed] The reasoning of the first instance judgment is different.

An appeal (as follows, 2 to 4) shall be raised from the two pages of the judgment of the first instance:

C. After that, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued an extension of the period of prohibition of departure on December 24, 2018, in accordance with Article 4-2 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “previous disposition”), which extends the period of prohibition of departure by June 7, 2019 (hereinafter “previous disposition”). On October 2, 2019, the Defendant again issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure by December 7, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

From the two pages of the judgment of the first instance court, "No. 3" of the first instance judgment is raised as "No. 3, 11, 12".

【Supplementary Decision】

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea, even though there are no circumstances to recognize that the Plaintiff had escaped from the Republic of Korea, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to hold any particular property and the Plaintiff’s concealed property

Furthermore, the basic rights were excessively infringed upon after the lapse of one year period for prohibition of departure against the plaintiff.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence as seen earlier and the statements Nos. 9 and 10, which were revealed in the entirety of the pleadings, are the following circumstances.