1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 1”) failed to pay customs duties, etc. during the process of importing each automobile, etc. from August 9, 2006 to December 29, 2008; and C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 2”) from May 22, 2008 to December 24, 2009.

B. On November 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition prohibiting the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea until February 21, 2016, on the grounds that the Plaintiff, who is the secondary taxpayer of Nonparty 1 and 2, was in arrears with approximately KRW 5.2 billion in total, including customs duties, as of November 23, 2015, and is likely to flee property overseas.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 9, 19, Eul’s evidence Nos. 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion first, the Plaintiff did not receive a notice of payment from the Intervenor joining the Defendant with regard to the secondary taxpayer, and the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the preceding tax disposition was null and void.

Second, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s shares in Nonparty 1 and 2 secured at the time when the Intervenor designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer did not reach an oligopolistic shareholder, and even according to the records of Nonparty 1 Company’s rehabilitation case that the Intervenor acquired ex post facto by the Intervenor, Nonparty 1 and 2 as the father of the Plaintiff is the oligopolistic shareholder D. Thus, the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the preceding disposition becomes invalid.

Third, although the plaintiff did not own any property that is likely to escape overseas, the disposition of this case by the defendant, which the plaintiff lost the recent place of work and was at a risk of living separately from his family members, so the disposition of this case is unlawful by abusing or abusing discretion.

(b) Entry in the attached statutes of the relevant statutes;

(c)with respect to the secondary taxpayer of the plate 1.