logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.04.28 2017구합56490
출국금지기간연장처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As of March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a value-added tax of 29,339,50 won for the year 2012, which is June 30, 2012; the due date for payment of value-added tax of 4,509,160 won for the year 2010, June 30, 2013; the due date for payment of value-added tax of 36,471,490 won for the year 2008, July 31, 2013; the corporate tax of 105,075,560 won for the year 201; the due date for payment of value-added tax of 16,063,450 won for the year 2013; the due date for payment of value-added tax of 16,350 won for the year 201, 2013; the due date for payment of KRW 3631,81,205 won for the year 201.

B. Around July 2014, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to prohibit departure of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 7-4(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 10-5(2)3 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 4(3) of the Immigration Control Act. The Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit departure of the Plaintiff from August 6, 2014 to February 5, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s default on national taxes was against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 4 of the Immigration Control Act, and the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from the Plaintiff from February 6, 2017 to August 5, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 14-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there is no risk that the plaintiff could make it difficult to enforce compulsory execution due to the plaintiff's departure from the Republic of Korea to escape property overseas. The disposition of this case is unlawful against the principle of excessive prohibition.

B. Prohibition of departure on the grounds of tax deficiencies.

arrow