1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 10, 200 to July 30, 2001, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 187,323,00 in total, value-added tax, business income tax, global income tax, special consumption tax, and special consumption tax, as the representative of an entertainment tavern B.

B. On August 2015, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea under Article 7-4(1) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 10-5(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act.

C. Accordingly, on August 27, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from August 27, 2015 to February 25, 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act. After that, on February 21, 2020, the Defendant again issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition from departure from the Plaintiff from February 26, 2020 to August 25, 2020 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap-5, 6 evidence, Eul-1, 11 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff received a monthly wage of 1.6 million won and used most expenses for living. C, a de facto marital spouse, also works for a daily occupation, and income is low. The plaintiff paid necessary expenses by credit card and received compensation with membership fees, etc., because it is not larger than the plaintiff's revenue. Thus, the plaintiff has high property to conceal it in a foreign country.

is not a property concealed in or out of Korea.

In addition, the plaintiff's stay in the South East Asia area twice a year prior to the disposition of prohibition of departure is not for volunteer activities, but for the purpose of overseas flight of property, and the cost of overseas stay is also borne by the service organization operated by the plaintiff.

In light of these circumstances, the Plaintiff’s departure from the Republic of Korea and there is no possibility that the property will escape from the Republic of Korea.