1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 27, 1973 to October 1991, Plaintiff A served as a major shareholder and representative director of Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), and Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A and was registered as a shareholder of the instant company.

B. Plaintiff A is in arrears with corporate tax, wage and salary income tax, global income tax, transfer income tax, etc. related to the instant company from around 1991 to around 198, and thus, was in arrears with approximately KRW 1,549,584,920 at present. Plaintiff B is in arrears with corporate tax and labor income tax related to the instant company from 1991 to 1992, and is currently in arrears with KRW 730,464,390 at present.

C. On March 4, 2016, based on Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant extended the period of prohibition of departure from the Republic of Korea on a six-month basis from February 11, 2016 to August 10, 2016, and extended the period of prohibition of departure from the Republic of Korea on February 18, 2019 again from February 11, 2019 to August 10, 2019.

(hereinafter the aforementioned disposition taken on February 18, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 18, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was that the Plaintiffs were delinquent in national taxes, but this was due to the instant company’s failure to pay national taxes, and there were circumstances to consider the delinquency.

In around 2005, Plaintiff B was declared not to be a shareholder of the instant company. Nevertheless, Plaintiff B still bears the secondary tax liability as a shareholder of the instant company violates the substantive truth.

The plaintiffs are no longer likely to flee property overseas because they have no property owned by them, and they are old age.

Therefore, in comparison with the public interest to achieve the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case is excessive and thereby, the disadvantage of the plaintiffs is excessive.