1. The Defendant’s disposition of prohibiting departure on December 30, 2016, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) from around 1996, and the said company was under pressure due to financial crisis and construction business restructuring from the second half of 2008, and became insolvent on March 2009.

B. The Plaintiff was subject to imposition of global income tax of KRW 709,478,440, and KRW 39,602,90 as global income tax of the year to which the year to which 2008 was reverted, as a result of the recognition and contribution disposition in the course of operating B, and KRW 1,632,97,60, and KRW 877,149,250 as global income tax of the year to which 2009 was reverted, were imposed as global income tax of KRW 207,60 as income tax of the year to which 209 was reverted, and was registered as a list of large-amount and habitual delinquent taxpayers in 2013.

C. On January 7, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the prohibition of departure to the Plaintiff from January 10, 2015 to July 9, 2015, but revoked the prohibition of departure to the Plaintiff on April 24, 2015.

On July 6, 2016, at the request of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibiting departure against the Plaintiff from the time of July 6, 2016 to January 4, 2017. On December 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure from the time of January 5, 2017 to July 4, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7 through 12, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) confirmed that there was no concealed property upon the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy and exemption from liability. The Plaintiff’s assertion that prohibition of departure solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff was in arrears with taxes without any risk of capital flight is illegal, since it was impossible to recover the tax claim, the Plaintiff’s livelihood is difficult and deprived of employment opportunities in foreign countries, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion and the family members are overseas in the absence of high-amount taxes.