beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure made on February 26, 2018 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. As of August 2016, the Plaintiff was in arrears with the tax of KRW 214,04,00 in total (including additional dues) and KRW 193,441,000 in capital gains tax (including additional dues; hereinafter “instant capital gains tax”).
B. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service determined that “the Plaintiff was a delinquent taxpayer in the amount of KRW 213,198,00 due to the Plaintiff’s transfer of real estate and the failure to report or pay the relevant transfer income tax, and the claim for the seized insurance money, etc. is not available for taxation due to no practical benefit. The Plaintiff, after transferring the commercial building to a high amount, failed to perform his/her duty of report or payment under the circumstances in which the user of the transfer income is not identified, but accumulated the transfer proceeds, etc. as concealed property to avoid disposition on default without additional seizure and payment, even if the business income in 2015 reaches KRW 127,00,000,000. The Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to prohibit departure on the ground that the Plaintiff from departing from Korea due to the lack of business resumption, etc., at any time in the term of validity of the passport, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s prohibition of departure on the part of the Plaintiff from March 16, 2015.
C. The Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure twice thereafter, and to extend the period of prohibition of departure on February 26, 2018 from March 2, 2018 to September 1, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The real estate against which the transfer income tax of this case was imposed is owned by B who is the spouse of the Plaintiff.