1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is delinquent in paying the transfer income tax of KRW 487,636,00 (including additional dues) as of December 2017.

B. On February 2, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from February 2, 2017 to July 31, 2017 pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, and thereafter, issued a disposition to extend the respective prohibition of departure from August 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018 pursuant to Article 4-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act.

C. On July 20, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure to the Plaintiff from August 1, 2018 to January 31, 2019.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 27, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff alleged that the transfer income tax was imposed while transferring the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff was inevitably delinquent due to insufficient financial resources due to the repayment of the loan, etc., and there is no concern that the Plaintiff did not escape any property overseas, and there is no concern that the Plaintiff could escape. On the other hand, due to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff was at a disadvantage, such as having no child residing in a foreign country, and thus, the instant disposition

3. Where an administrative disposition is revoked as to the legitimacy of the disposition, such disposition becomes null and void due to the revocation, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202 Decided December 13, 2012, etc.). ex officio, the Defendant rescinded the instant disposition against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 4-3(1) of the Immigration Control Act on September 10, 2018 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s delinquent national tax ceased to exist by prescription. As such, the Defendant sought the revocation of the instant disposition, for which no claim for revocation exists, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

4. Conclusion.