1. The Defendant’s disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure from June 22, 2018 to December 21, 2018, which was rendered to the Plaintiff on June 15, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a representative director of a stock company B, which runs a wholesale and retail business of livestock products (hereinafter “instant company”) and the secondary person liable for tax payment, who is an oligopolistic stockholder, is delinquent in national taxes of KRW 2,259,00,700 in total, including corporate tax, wage and salary income tax, global income tax, etc.

B. On December 22, 2016, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff (from December 22, 2016 to June 21, 2017) on the basis of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, and thereafter extended the period of prohibition of departure for the Plaintiff on June 15, 2018, pursuant to Article 4-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant issued a disposition of extension of the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff from June 22, 2018 to December 21, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that ① the plaintiff did not directly operate the company of this case as a family owner, but the plaintiff did not know about the reason for failure to pay national taxes because he lent only to her husband C the representative director of the company of this case, and the period for filing a lawsuit passed without disputing the imposition of national taxes. ② The purpose of prohibiting departure on the ground of national taxes in arrears is to prevent the delinquent taxpayer from making it difficult for the plaintiff to perform compulsory execution due to the delinquent taxpayer's departure from Korea, etc. Thus, it can be limited to the case where there is a concern for the plaintiff to escape property. The plaintiff does not have any property to escape, and the plaintiff does not have any intention to escape property. ③ The number of times the plaintiff left Korea before the disposition of prohibition of departure is issued is three times only three times, and all of them were the purpose of travel expenses borne by his father and his father,

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c)a recognition;