1. The Defendant’s disposition to extend the period of six months from June 5, 2017 (from June 9, 2017 to December 8, 2017) to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 27, 2005 to March 201, the Plaintiff engaged in the manufacturing business of synthetic resin as the representative director of Company B (hereinafter “B”). From April 30, 2011 to June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was in office as the representative director of Company C (hereinafter “C”) that merges B, and as of December 9, 2016, was in office as the representative director of Company C (hereinafter “C”), and as of December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff is in arrears of KRW 810,327,00 and local tax of KRW 72,073,510.

B. On June 10, 2016, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure (from June 10, 2016 to December 9, 2016) on the ground that the Plaintiff is delinquent in national taxes without justifiable grounds, and thereafter extended the period of prohibition of departure from November 30, 2016 from December 10 to June 9, 2017.

C. On December 9, 2016, at the request of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure (from December 9, 2016 to June 8, 2017) on the grounds that the Plaintiff is likely to flee property overseas while defaulting on the said local tax, and issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure from June 5, 2017 from June 9, 2017 to December 8, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “each extension disposition of this case”, including the extension disposition of the period of prohibition of departure from office on June 7, 2017 and the extension disposition of the period of prohibition of departure from office on June 5, 2017 with respect to the above national tax, hereinafter referred to as “the aforementioned extension disposition of this case”), / [based grounds for recognition] the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, 9, 10 evidence (including each number, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s statement in the evidence 1,

2. Whether each extension disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The extension of the period of prohibition of departure on the ground of the Plaintiff’s unpaid national taxes, etc. is allowed in cases where it is difficult to enforce compulsory execution, such as the delinquent taxpayer’s flight of property overseas by departing from the Republic of Korea.