1. The plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff, from June 27, 1973 to October 1991, served as the major shareholder and representative director of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

The Plaintiff is in arrears with corporate tax, wage and salary income tax, global income tax, transfer income tax, etc. related to the instant company from around 1991 to around 1998, and is in arrears with approximately KRW 1,649,605,840 as of February 2016.

On March 4, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea from February 11, 2016 to August 10, 2016 based on Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act.

Since then, the Defendant extended the period of prohibition of departure from August 22, 2016 to February 11, 2017 against the Plaintiff, and extended the period of prohibition of departure from February 15, 2017 to August 10, 2017.

(2) The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, inasmuch as the disposition of this case by February 15, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") is legitimate, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since there is no dispute on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance.

No. 2 of the first instance judgment, "Evidence 4-3, and No. 2 through 9 of the A" shall be written with "Evidence 2, No. 4-3, No. 10, and No. 10 of the A, and No. 1 through No. 9 of the first instance judgment."

If the first instance judgment No. 2, No. 19 and 20 of the first instance judgment “B The Plaintiff was in arrears after the date of national tax delinquency,” “B was disposed of by auction or public sale of the company’s property, and the partial amount of delinquent taxes was repaid, but the Plaintiff voluntarily paid the amount of delinquent national taxes to the lower court after the lapse of 18 years from the last time from 1991 to 198.