1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 10, 2014, the prosecutor of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office requested the Defendant to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea while investigating the Plaintiff, who is a national of the Republic of Korea, for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

Around that time, the Defendant was prohibited from departure against the Plaintiff, and thereafter extended the prohibition period several times.

On May 18, 2015, the prosecutor of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office filed a prosecution against the plaintiff on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) (Seoul Western District Court 2015Gohap90), and on May 19, 2015, requested the defendant to extend the period of prohibition of departure against the plaintiff.

Accordingly, on May 19, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from May 19, 2015 to November 17, 2015 on the ground that the said criminal trial is in progress against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 2, Eul’s evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff should depart from the Republic of Korea to France, so the disposition of this case must be revoked.

(B) The plaintiff did not claim specific grounds for illegality of the disposition of this case.

Judgment

Article 4(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “The Minister of Justice may prohibit a citizen who is pending in a criminal trial from departing from the Republic of Korea for a specified period not exceeding six months.”

Since the above criminal trial is pending, the Plaintiff is subject to prohibition of departure stipulated in the above provision.

The summary of the facts charged in the above criminal trial is as follows: (a) around April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff, the representative director of the victim B, sold 35,100 shares of “C” that the victim purchased at a 97,500,000, in total, 35,100 shares of “D and E” (i.e., 17,550 shares sale price of 17,550 shares for D, 17,50 shares sale price of 17,550 shares for E, 17,550 shares sale price of 17,550 shares for D) in violation of his/her occupational duties, thereby violating