1. The Defendant’s disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure issued on November 19, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 24, 2003 to May 1, 2007, the Plaintiff operated the “C” entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “the instant entertainment drinking club”) located under the 101 and 102 of the YY-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”). On April 2014, the Plaintiff was in arrears with business income tax, special consumption tax, value added tax, etc. related to the said entertainment drinking club, and thus, was in arrears with the Plaintiff’s national tax amounting to KRW 1,107,345,00 in total (i.e., principal tax amounting to KRW 643,122,250 plus KRW 464,222,750).

B. On May 24, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition prohibiting the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea on the grounds of Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act, upon the request of the director of the Bupyeong Tax Office, and extended the prohibition period for departure twice thereafter.

C. Since then, the director of the Busan District Tax Office again requested the Defendant to extend the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff. On November 19, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition extending the period of prohibition of departure against the Plaintiff based on Article 4-2 (1) of the Immigration Control Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s delinquent amount of national taxes is KRW 1,107,345,000,000, the place where the Plaintiff transferred and received the instant building on September 17, 2008, and the place where the Plaintiff used the proceeds from the business of the instant entertainment drinking house from around 2002 to around 2008, where the place where the Plaintiff used the proceeds from the business of the instant entertainment drinking house was unclear, and at all, the expiration date of the period was issued a long-term passport on March 29, 202 without paying the amount in arrears.”

(See Evidence No. 7, hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The disposition of prohibition of departure on the ground that the plaintiff's assertion of national taxes are delinquent shall prevent the delinquent taxpayer from making it difficult to enforce compulsory execution due to the escape of his property overseas by taking advantage of his departure.