1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to KRW 625 million for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. at the Busan District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 14, 2013.

B. On August 23, 2017, the chief prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutor’s Office requested the Defendant to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea.

Accordingly, on August 25, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea on the grounds of the unpaid penalty surcharge pursuant to Article 4(1)3 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 1-3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, from August 23, 2017 to February 22, 2018, and thereafter extended the period of prohibition from departing from the Republic of Korea from February 23, 2018 to August 22, 2018.

C. After that, on August 16, 2018, at the request of the chief prosecutor of Busan District Prosecutors’ Office, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from the Republic of Korea from August 23, 2018 to February 22, 2019 on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to pay additional charges pursuant to Article 4-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to revoke the instant disposition on the following grounds.

1. The main purpose of prohibition of departure and extension of the period of prohibition of departure on the grounds of unpaid additional collection charges is to prevent a person who has failed to pay additional collection charges from making it difficult to enforce compulsory execution due to his/her escape of property overseas by using his/her departure from the Republic of Korea, not to secure a

The disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure on the sole basis of the unpaid fact of the surcharge itself, even though there is no other property than the property attached by the tax authorities other than the property attached to the Plaintiff, does not constitute a purpose. Since the disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition, the disposition of this case is deemed to have exceeded and abused discretion.