1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the Defendant’s claim for revocation of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff on July 23, 2014 is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated each restaurant with the trade name “B” from March 17, 2007 to March 8, 2010, and with the trade name “C” from January 1, 2010 to May 16, 2012.

As of September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff began to pay national taxes since 2008, the value-added tax and global income tax of KRW 79,727,710 related to the above restaurant are in arrears.

B. On July 23, 2014, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff (from July 23, 2014 to January 22, 2015) on the basis of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, and extended the period of prohibition of departure on January 23, 2015 (from January 23, 2015 to July 22, 2015).

(hereinafter referred to as “disposition of Prohibition of Departure as of July 23, 2014” and “Disposition of Extension of Prohibition of Departure as of January 23, 2015” / [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, entry in Gap’s 1, 12, Eul’s 1, 4, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the part requesting revocation of the disposition of prohibition of departure on July 23, 2014, among the instant lawsuit, is legitimate

(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 effective period of the disposition of prohibition of departure against the plaintiff on July 23, 2014 is from July 23, 2014 to January 22, 2015, and it is apparent that the period has passed as of the date of closing argument in this case. The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Immigration Control Act, do not stipulate the fact that the period of prohibition of departure in the past is subject to the disposition of prohibition of departure in the past. In addition, when the period of prohibition of departure is extended, the plaintiff is separately required to submit explanatory materials. Thus, the plaintiff's legal interest remains in the appearance.