1. The Defendant’s disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure on March 9, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated B, which was imposed capital gains tax of KRW 323,866,170 on December 31, 1998 by the National Tax Service on which the initial payment deadline was imposed, and on January 19, 2018, including increased additional tax of KRW 213,751,450 as of January 19, 2018, the Plaintiff is delinquent in national taxes of KRW 628,268,980 (hereinafter “instant national taxes”).

B. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea on the grounds of the instant default of national taxes, and accordingly, the Defendant issued a disposition prohibiting the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea from March 13, 2017 to September 8, 2017, based on Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act on March 15, 2017.

On September 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from September 9, 2017 to March 8, 2018, and issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from March 9, 2018 under Article 4-2 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) from March 9, 2018 to September 8, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, 31, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is not likely to make it difficult for the plaintiff to enforce compulsory execution due to the lack of the ability to pay taxes due to the loss caused by the failure to pay a large amount of national taxes on account of the failure to pay taxes, etc. on or around 193 when managing the company.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that the Defendant prohibited the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea should be revoked because it violates the principle of excessive prohibition, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s fundamental rights, and is in violation of the discretionary authority.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. In fact, the Plaintiff, who operated the manufacturing company B from around 1989 to around 1993, is a factory site and a building on the ground outside Gyeonggi-gun in order to repay bank loans, etc. to the wind that caused a large amount of losses.