(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.16 2017누35891

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.16 2017누35891

출국금지처분취소

Text

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

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the court rejected each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 13 (including various numbers) which are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as a new evidence submitted by this court, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Part II, Chapters VII through VIII (hereinafter referred to as "B") of the 2nd 7th 7th 7th 7 through VIII (hereinafter referred to as "the 1th 1th 7th 7th 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibiting the Plaintiff from departing from September 26, 2016 to March 22, 2017 on the ground of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act on September 26, 2016, but again issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition from departing from March 23, 2017 to September 22, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "instant disposition").

Part 9 of the Second Class 9 [Reasons for Recognition] shall be added to "A No. 14".

The following grounds are as follows: “(The plaintiff, as the representative director of the corporation B on February 10, 2017, paid the full amount of KRW 117,904,770 in arrears, which constitutes a significant change of circumstances. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 4 and 7, the plaintiff is a secondary taxpayer for the amount of 117,904,70 won in arrears of the corporation B; and the fact that he/she collected the sales claim of the corporation B attached before February 10, 2017 and appropriated it for the amount of delinquent taxes. Thus, it is difficult to view that the collection of the claim that was seized on the part of the tax office and appropriated for the amount of delinquent taxes by collecting the claims existing on the part of the tax office does not voluntarily pay the amount of delinquent taxes.”

It is difficult to see the fifth chapter.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-출입국관리법 제4조 제1항 제4호

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.05.28 2014누62489

-서울고등법원 2017.06.21 2016누71913

-대전지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나14755

-부산지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나53761

-서울고등법원 2015.01.22 2014누57289