logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.02.08 2018누62012
출국금지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is recognized in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

In 2nd 10, “the instant disposition was extended” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) and again, on November 12, 2018, the term of prohibition against departure against Plaintiff was extended from August 3, 2018 to February 2, 2019 (hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

2 pages 11 "A No. 4" shall be understood as "A. 4 and 35."

8. The 8th parallel “The amount of KRW 2,741,127,00 shall be paid” as “The transfer value reaches KRW 2,741,127,000.”

8. The following shall be added to the 16th page “not to be excluded”:

Although the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “The Plaintiff (the Plaintiff) was not a accommodation fee by bearing the flight fee at the time when the Thailand exists, and going at the church accommodation. However, considering the Plaintiff’s arrival and departure frequency of the Thailand and the period of its stay, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff and T, a relatively small-scale Korean society bears the aviation fee, etc. of the Plaintiff and T, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

. See 9 9 . 3 and 4 ........ the following shall be added:

Although the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that T had considerable assets received from the Plaintiff prior to the Plaintiff’s delinquency in tax, the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(i) 9.9.16. The following shall be added:

【7) The Plaintiff appears to have no particular restrictions on attending domestic worships and conducting religious activities, such as missionary work, etc., and is necessarily to overseas of Thailand, etc.

arrow