1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

[Supplementary or additional parts] At the bottom of two pages, the phrase “2017da 11074” shall be read as “2017da 11074.”

The two pages 3 took place (hereinafter “instant disposition”). “On October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff again issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from the Plaintiff on October 14, 2018 to April 13, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).”

3 pages 1, 2, and 12 of the 3th 3th eth eths "B Nos. 1, 2, 12, and 16" shall be raised.

3) The part of paragraph 3 of Article 4 is that “(3)” is that “F, the spouse of the Plaintiff, transferred KRW 44,280,877 to a child C’s account residing in New Zealand even though there was no particular income at the time of December 22, 2011.”

At the bottom of 6, the “certificate (No. 13)” shall be added to the “Protocol of Examination of Witness (No. 16) against D.

The term "for securing the amount in arrears" in the 8th parallel 4th parallel shall be "for securing the amount in arrears".

Thus, the plaintiff's claim that was changed to exchange in this court is dismissed as it is without merit.

(2) The judgment of the court of first instance regarding the revocation of the disposition rendered on April 9, 2018 was invalidated since the previous suit was withdrawn due to the exchange change in this court). Although the term of prohibition of departure was set as of the date of closing of argument in this court among the instant disposition, the part regarding which the term of prohibition of departure was set has been exceeded, the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19297 Decided July 19, 2007 was not dismissed separately, but determined as to the lawfulness of the entire disposition of this case.