logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.07.20 2018구합53863
출국금지기간연장처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure made on May 14, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was imposed global income tax of KRW 1,978,423,250 as of July 31, 2005 (hereinafter “instant global income tax”) and paid only KRW 14,545,040 among them, and is still in arrears.

B. Around May 19, 2016, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea on the grounds of default of national taxes, the Defendant first issued a disposition of prohibiting the Plaintiff from departing from May 19, 2016 to November 18, 2016, which extended the period of prohibition from the Republic of Korea on May 19, 2016, and later issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition from departure from May 14, 2018 (hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s failure to pay taxes due to the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy, but the Plaintiff intentionally concealed or disposed of the assets, and there is no possibility of capital flight abroad due to the lack of assets currently in possession, and that the business trip currently in progress at the company that had been working since 2015 is essential, and that the income that would be earned through dispatch abroad is entirely reported in Korea and thereby does not enhance the risk of capital concealment, the instant disposition was unlawful since it exceeded the scope of discretionary authority.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) On March 2, 2004, the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “B”) and held office until December 1, 2009, when the said company was dissolved.

B was deemed to have been terminated on December 10, 2012.

B. Results of the tax investigation on B

arrow