1. The Defendant’s disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 16, 2004 to October 20, 2006, the Plaintiff operated a “B company” engaging in wholesale and retail business of household goods. In this regard, from January 16, 2005 to January 1, 2011, the Plaintiff is in arrears with value-added tax, global income tax, etc. imposed due to sales omission, non-reporting, etc., and is currently 107,83,530 won (including surcharges).

B. On December 6, 2012, pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant issued a disposition prohibiting the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea from December 7, 2012 to June 6, 2013.

Since then, the Defendant extended the period of prohibition of departure several times against the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from December 7, 2014 to June 6, 2015 against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). (In the absence of dispute with the basis for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s disposition of prohibition of departure on the ground of default of national taxes, etc. is to prevent the Plaintiff from having difficulties in compulsory execution due to the delinquent taxpayer’s flight of property overseas by using his/her departure from Korea. The Plaintiff and his/her family members are currently residing in the Republic of Korea and there is no other ground for living overseas. The Plaintiff paid part of national taxes, and the Plaintiff has left Korea abroad over 35 times from around 2004 to around 2012, but this is for mediating the import consumer contract between China’s factory and domestic distributor, taking full account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case on the ground of default of tax payment merely goes beyond the Defendant’s discretionary power, even though there is no concealed property and there is no possibility of leaving the property damaged by the compulsory execution of national taxes, etc. overseas.

(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;