1. The period of prohibition against the Defendant’s departure on March 27, 2017, upon a claim for change in exchange at the trial.

Details of the disposition

This Court's explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal, deletion or addition as follows. Thus, this Court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second half of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the second half of the judgment”) was final by the Defendant on March 27, 2017, which extended the Plaintiff’s period of prohibition of departure from the Plaintiff from April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Ro-friendly.

The second sentence of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from the second sentence to the 19th sentence.

“B No. 11” shall be added to “based grounds for recognition” in the second 20th sentence of the judgment of the first instance.

The Plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the instant disposition in the first instance court that “The Defendant’s extension of the period of prohibition of departure on September 26, 2016 and the notice of prohibition of departure on October 20, 2016 was not served, so each of the above dispositions is invalid due to the defect in the requirements of validity.”

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of prohibition of departure on October 20, 2016, and changed the lawsuit to seek the revocation of the instant disposition on the ground that the period of prohibition of departure was expired in accordance with the extension of the period of prohibition of departure on September 26, 2016, and the instant disposition was issued. In relation to the changed lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not dispute the defects in the requirements of validity.

Therefore, it is not determined separately as to whether the instant disposition satisfies the requirements for entry into force.

In the past, while engaging in the non-ferrous metal wholesale business in the past, the Plaintiff was not in arrears due to financial crisis, the occurrence of legal disputes, etc. and was not intentionally avoided tax payment, and the Plaintiff is not likely to escape property overseas because it has no property currently owned, and the Plaintiff is excluded from the Plaintiff.