1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 9, 2016, the Defendant, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, issued a disposition prohibiting the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea from June 20, 2016 to December 19, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to pay national taxes, based on Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 1-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thereafter issued a disposition extending the period of prohibition of departure every six months.

B. On June 14, 2019, upon the request of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from the Republic of Korea from June 20, 2019 to December 19, 2019 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay national taxes pursuant to Article 4-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, and Gap evidence 19, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s disposition of prohibition of departure and extension of the period of prohibition of departure on the ground of the Plaintiff’s assertion of national tax in arrears is aimed at preventing a delinquent taxpayer from making it difficult to enforce compulsory execution due to his/her escape of property overseas by using his/her departure from Korea. Thus, it is not permissible in light of the principle of prohibition of excessive prohibition to prohibit departure immediately on the sole basis of the fact of national tax in arrears with a certain amount

In the case of the plaintiff, it was difficult for the circumstances of B operated by the plaintiff, and due to the increase of financial difficulties due to the failure of the principal seller, the tax authorities did not find the plaintiff's property or detect the situation that the plaintiff concealed property or concealed property overseas, and the plaintiff left Korea several times prior to the disposition of prohibition of departure, but most of the visiting countries are limited to Vietnam and China, and most of the period of stay was for business travel within 2 to 3 days, and both the plaintiff and his family are residing in Korea.