1. The judgment of the first instance court is modified in accordance with the purport of the claim amended by the trial court as follows.

The plaintiff's claim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding adding or using some contents, and deleting the part as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. In addition or after addition, a part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is written on the 2th 8,9 pages of the second 8, and deleted, the following shall be added to the following 9 pages of the above 9, and the "statement A No. 39" shall be added to the column of the ground for recognition of the 3rd 1 parallel.

On July 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure extended from July 31, 2016 to January 16, 2017.

(A) Of the above dispositions, the part ordering prohibition of departure from November 10, 2016 to January 16, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The following shall be added to the five-way notice of the first instance judgment:

At the first day for pleading of the trial at the court of first instance, the court clarified whether the Plaintiff’s child H and the Plaintiff’s wife B had the intent to establish a collateral security right with respect to the property owned by the Plaintiff’s child as a preserved right, and if so, recommended the establishment of the collateral security right after consultation with the taxation authority. However, the Plaintiff’s agent stated that it is aware that the Plaintiff’s agent had no intention to establish the collateral security right at present.

According to this, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff intended to take practical measures, such as the provision of security, to secure tax liabilities.

It is insufficient to view that only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 44 through 46 provided objective security for tax obligations.

According to the above various circumstances, even if the plaintiff did not pay the delinquent taxes of this case, and the plaintiff is unable to enforce national tax enforcement due to departure from Korea.