1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a representative director, and the major shareholder of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) established on January 10, 1966 for the purpose of real estate leasing business, is delinquent in the amount of KRW 8,353,610,090 (hereinafter “instant national tax”) in total, including global income tax and capital gains tax, from July 31, 2003 as shown in the attached Table.

B. On October 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea from October 27, 2012 to April 26, 2013 pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 1-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

C. Since then, the Defendant extended the period of prohibition of departure against Plaintiff on several occasions, and extended the period of prohibition of departure against Plaintiff on October 27, 2014 to April 26, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case"). 【The above last extension disposition of this case's / [the grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The purport of allowing the disposition of prohibition of departure to a delinquent taxpayer is to prevent the Plaintiff from having difficulties in compulsory execution due to the failure of a delinquent taxpayer to pay national taxes due to a default of business due to a foreign exchange crisis around 1997, and thus, the Plaintiff is subject to a disposition of prohibition of departure for a long time, and the Plaintiff does not have any property other than the current property attached to the Defendant. In full view of the above, the Plaintiff’s mere disposition of this case on the ground of tax delinquency is an abuse of the Defendant’s discretionary power, even though there is no concealed property and there is no possibility that it would escape property damaged by a compulsory execution of national taxes, etc. from abroad.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Fact-finding 1) The company of this case is Seoul from around 1972.