1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the Defendant’s claim for revocation of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff on July 28, 2014 is dismissed.

1. The tax office having jurisdiction over the details of the disposition and the current amount in arrears (unit) of the tax office having jurisdiction over the current amount in arrears, the global income tax of 19,801,253,210, the global income tax of 2010; 98,584,020;

A. As of June 2014, the Plaintiff is in arrears with a total of KRW 19,899,837,230 as follows.

(hereinafter “instant national taxes”). (b)

On July 28, 2014, pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 1-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibiting departure against the Plaintiff on the ground of delinquency in national taxes (hereinafter “prior disposition”) from July 28, 2014 to January 27, 2015, and issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure on January 26, 2015.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of the prior disposition in the instant lawsuit is lawful

(a) Where the effective period of an administrative disposition is fixed, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of such disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remaining appearance of the disposition after the lapse of that period, as the effect of such administrative disposition becomes invalidated.

(Supreme Court Decision 98Du14471 delivered on February 23, 199). B.

According to the above facts, the validity period of the prior disposition in this case is from July 28, 2014 to January 27, 2015, and it is clear that the period has passed as of the date of closing argument in this case, and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Immigration Control Act, etc. do not require the requirement of prohibition of departure in the past, etc., and the extension of the prohibition period does not require the submission of explanatory materials separately when the prohibition of departure is extended. Thus, the plaintiff's legal interests are infringed due to the remainder of the prohibition of departure.

Any legal interest that is recovered from the cancellation of the disposition shall be deemed to exist.