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, as of July 15, 2016, failed to pay the national taxes of KRW 31,084,160, including the business income tax and individual consumption tax (7) on January 31, 2012; KRW 82,792,830 (3); global income tax; KRW 55,535,30 (12); and KRW 25,091,760 (10); and KRW 194,50,504,050 (32); and

B. On May 2016, 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, Article 10-5(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 4(3) of the Immigration Control Act.

Around May 12, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea from May 23, 2016 to November 22, 2016, pursuant to Article 4 of the Immigration Control Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s default of national taxes was due to the Plaintiff’s default of national taxes. Pursuant to Article 4-2 of the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition from departing from November 23, 2016 to May 22, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

On May 17, 2017, the Defendant again issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from May 23, 2017 to November 22, 2017 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is against Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act that "the disposition of this case must be prohibited to the minimum extent necessary," because the plaintiff merely enters or departs from the Republic of Korea once a month while making a trip trip activities to maintain his/her livelihood, and there is no risk that the plaintiff's compulsory execution may be difficult, such as leaving the Republic of Korea to flee his/her property overseas."

In addition, the Plaintiff suffered significant disadvantage that the Plaintiff was unable to engage in economic activities because of the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is against the principle of proportionality.