1. The Defendant’s disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 18, 1997, the Plaintiff established a software development company, and was in office as the representative director, and closed the company on November 1, 2003. Around 2008, the Plaintiff failed to pay global income tax, etc. notified by the disposal of income in relation to the said company, resulting in the Plaintiff’s total amount of national tax delinquent at KRW 103,00,000,000 as of September 30, 2014.

B. On November 22, 2012, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff on the ground of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, and extended the period of prohibition of departure three times thereafter.

C. On November 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure to the Plaintiff from November 24, 2014 to May 23, 2015 pursuant to Article 4-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 10 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff’s assertion is imposed in accordance with the bonus deemed as a representative’s bonus provision, so there is a difference between the Plaintiff’s intentional omission of a return of income; the tax authority does not detect the circumstances that the Plaintiff concealed property or escaped from Korea; the Plaintiff’s departure is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s departure is departure for the purpose of escape of property from Korea considering the Plaintiff’s current position and career; the Plaintiff’s aid to the spouse or his family members; the Plaintiff was departing from Korea; there is little possibility that the Plaintiff may escape from Korea; and the Plaintiff’s departure from Korea is also prohibited from departing from the Defendant’s discretionary authority.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The plaintiff is the spouse C.