1. On April 24, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff (from April 27, 2015 to October 26, 2015).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around May 1996, the Plaintiff, who served as the representative director of the Civil Construction Business Co., Ltd. B (hereinafter “instant company”), was in arrears with taxes of the total amount of KRW 186,871,480 (including additional dues), including global income tax (tax imposed on April 1, 2005) notified due to the disposal of income for 203 and the transfer income tax (tax imposed on May 13, 2004) accrued from the sale and purchase of real estate for 2003.

B. On October 27, 2012, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff (from October 27, 2012 to April 26, 2013) on the basis of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, and extended the period of prohibition of departure four times thereafter.

C. On April 24, 2015, pursuant to Articles 4-2 and 4-4(1) of the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff from April 27, 2015 to October 26, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 18 (including paper numbers), Eul No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that global income tax for the year 2003 was imposed by the disposition of income by recognizing the representative of the instant company as the Plaintiff’s disposal of income. The instant company imposed corporate tax due to the Plaintiff’s failure to properly file corporate tax returns, such as deducting the input tax in the insolvency crisis around 2003, and the Plaintiff’s frequent departure from the Republic of Korea or this is not for the purpose of enabling the Plaintiff to escape property overseas. The apartment price sold by the Plaintiff was used for the repayment of the company’s debt, most of the apartment price sold by the Plaintiff was used for the Plaintiff’s wife’s independent economic activity, and the apartment and stocks acquired by the Plaintiff’s wife did not purchase the money with the Plaintiff’s concealed property, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was concealed property for the Plaintiff to escape from Korea.