1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 26, 200 to March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff operated the said legal entity as the representative director of the Company B (T: Construction, and Type of Business). From February 11, 2008, the Plaintiff operated the said legal entity together with a personal business entity of “C” (C: real estate and type of business: lease). As of November 8, 2018, the Plaintiff was in arrears with a total of approximately KRW 1.7 billion national taxes, including global income tax, due to the recognized commercial disposition as shown in the following table.

(unit: 2015-03-31 48, 172 315, 764-172, 408 value-added tax of 10,176-10-25 10,176,516 6,663,660-3123,772 84,830 830,830 38,942 38,942 36,828,831307,4644 comprehensive real estate holding tax of 2014-12-15,057,057, 0261, 1759, 475265, 205, 2014-12-15, 2057, 25265, 257, 205265, 3156, 2065

B. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested the Defendant to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea on November 29, 2018, and the Defendant issued a disposition to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea for six months from June 8, 2018 to December 7, 2018 due to the cause of national tax delinquency pursuant to Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act.

C. After receipt of a request from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on December 24, 2018, the Defendant extended the period of prohibition of departure to June 7, 2019 pursuant to Article 4-2 of the Immigration Control Act against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is not a specially owned property and there is no fact that the plaintiff avoided disposition on default, such as hiding property, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a concern that property might escape abroad using departure from Korea.

Although the Plaintiff does not fall under the grounds for prohibition of departure under the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant voluntarily pays unpaid taxes by imposing psychological pressure.