beta
Text
1. On October 20, 2017, upon the claim that was changed in exchange by this court, the Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on October 20, 2017.
Reasons
The reasoning of this court, which has accepted the judgment of the first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Myeon 17 and 18 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") shall be deleted.
The following shall be added between two pages 18,19:
A person shall be appointed.
D. On April 25, 2017, in which this court was pending, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure by setting the period from April 30, 2017 to October 29, 2017, and again issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure by setting the period from October 20, 2017 to April 29, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
In light of the above legal principles, “A” in the grounds for recognition 2, 19, 20 parts of the 2, 19, and 20 parts of the “A” added “A” to “A”. 5, 12 parts of the 5, 5, 8, 7-9 parts of the 8, 7, and 9 parts of the 8, 3, as follows: (a) it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff could escape from the disposition for arrears because the Plaintiff might escape from the country and escape from the country, and thus, the instant disposition extended the prohibition period against departure of the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff might escape from the discretion, and thus excessively infringe the Plaintiff’s freedom of moving residence guaranteed by the Constitution, thereby violating the principle of excessive prohibition as stipulated in Article 37(2) of the Constitution. 8, 13 parts of the 8, 13 of the 8, and the following are added.
【In light of this, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s departure from the Republic of Korea was for the purpose of capital flight abroad. The Plaintiff’s departure from the Republic of Korea was at least four (4) years more than the time of sale as follows.
from the time of sale.