1. The Defendant’s disposition of extending the prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff on November 17, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, from January 2003, worked as the representative director of B Co., Ltd. (B) from around February 13, 2007, and was dissolved on December 5, 201, 201; hereinafter “B”), was designated as the secondary taxpayer of B, and was in arrears with national taxes totaling KRW 261,006,750, including corporate tax and value-added tax.

B. Meanwhile, from July 29, 2006 to July 12, 2012, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea several times with Japan, Hong Kong, Chicago, Malaysia, etc.

C. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to prohibit departure on October 18, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition prohibiting the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea from November 17, 2012 to May 16, 2013. The period of prohibition of departure has been extended several times thereafter, and finally, the Plaintiff’s period of prohibition of departure on November 17, 2014 was extended from November 17, 2014 to May 16, 2015.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion as the representative director B was liable for secondary tax liability due to the above company's default. The plaintiff's name does not have any property at present and there is no possibility that the plaintiff would conceal property or flee overseas. The plaintiff's stay in a foreign country after his default of national taxes was intended to make a business trip while holding office B, or visit his wife in order to have his spouse married with C who is his spouse in Japan. The plaintiff did not depart for the purpose of capital flight overseas for a relatively short period of stay for 3 to 5 days on average.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s property is not likely to flee overseas, and the instant disposition violates the freedom of residence transfer and the principle of excessive prohibition, and is unlawful by abusing discretion.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

(c).