1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant, as a secondary taxpayer of Company B (hereinafter “instant company”) by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, was obligated to pay 318,082,020 won national taxes in arrears by the instant company, but entered or departing from the Republic of Korea on several occasions without paying national taxes in arrears. The Plaintiff was requested to prohibit departure from the Republic of Korea to the effect that “the Plaintiff may avoid a disposition on default or divulge concealed funds to a foreign country.” On July 31, 2014, the Defendant prohibited the Plaintiff from departure.

After that, the defendant made a disposition extending the period of prohibition of departure on several occasions, and finally, on July 15, 2016, issued a disposition extending the period of prohibition of departure to the plaintiff.

(Prohibition Period of Departure (from July 31, 2016 to January 18, 2017; hereinafter “instant disposition”). B.

The term of validity of the passport issued by the Plaintiff on January 18, 2017, when the instant lawsuit was pending, has expired, and the Defendant did not extend the term of prohibition on departure from the instant disposition, and the instant disposition became invalid due to the expiration of the term of validity.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case was already invalidated, and the existing effect of prohibition of departure is not reflected in the increase in the future disposition of prohibition of departure. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest in dispute over the validity of the disposition of this case.

B. In a judgment administrative litigation, the benefit of protection of rights has been granted at the time of filing the lawsuit, and if it is judged that there is a risk that administrative disposition will be repeated due to the same cause between the same litigation parties even if the effect of the administrative disposition becomes extinct due to the lapse of the period, it is necessary to secure the legality of administration and to explain unclear legal issues.