1. On February 27, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff (from March 6, 2019 to September 5, 2019).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2001 to 2004, the Plaintiff was in arrears with national taxes, such as corporate tax, imposed as the secondary taxpayer of a stock company B (hereinafter “B”), and as of August 5, 2018, the amount of national taxes in arrears reaches KRW 425,44,160 in total (hereinafter “instant taxes in arrears”), and the Plaintiff’s said amount of national taxes in arrears (hereinafter “instant taxes in arrears”). (B)

The Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to prohibit departure pursuant to Article 7-4(1) of the National Tax Collection Act. On March 12, 2018, the Defendant issued the first disposition of prohibition of departure (from March 8, 2018 to September 5, 2018) pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 1-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act to the Plaintiff.

C. After the Defendant issued an extension disposition of the period of prohibition of departure (from September 6, 2018 to March 5, 2019), and on February 27, 2019, the Defendant issued an extension disposition of the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff (from March 6, 2019 to September 5, 2019; hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On June 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the first disposition.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserted the legality of the disposition of prohibition of departure in preparation for the modification of the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim, while making a preliminary objection to the purport that there was no interest in the lawsuit of this case on the grounds that the period of prohibition of departure was over.

In fact, since the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of this case, which extended the period of prohibition of departure by modifying the purport of the claim, the defendant's prior defense on the merits is deemed to have

A. While the Plaintiff’s assertion was closed due to the business shortage, the Plaintiff was merely liable to pay a large amount of taxes as a secondary taxpayer of B.