The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The part concerning the main claim among the lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed.

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of disposition (based on recognition), Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. As of November 2016, the Plaintiff is delinquent in national taxes of KRW 492,394,000, totaling KRW 233,109,00 (including additional dues) and global income tax of KRW 259,285,00 (including additional dues).

B. On November 11, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure to the Plaintiff from November 9, 2016 to May 7, 2017, based on Article 4(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

Upon expiration of the period of prohibition of departure, the Defendant issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from May 8, 2017 to November 7, 2017, and issued a disposition to extend the period of prohibition of departure from November 15, 2017 from November 8, 2017 to May 7, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant extension disposition” on November 5, 2017. 2. Determination ex officio: The Plaintiff’s determination as to the legitimacy of the primary claim is seeking revocation of the instant disposition by its primary claim.

However, the fact that the period of prohibition of departure as stipulated in the disposition of this case expired is apparent, and the defendant took the disposition of extending the period of this case after the expiration of the above period, so the primary claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case extinguished upon the expiration of the period was extinguished by loss of the benefit of protection of rights and thus the benefit of lawsuit was extinguished.

(See Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2003Hun-Ga18, Oct. 28, 2004). The Plaintiff asserts that in the case of a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition based on Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19297, Jul. 19, 2007, the benefit of the lawsuit should be exceptionally recognized.

The plaintiff, as alleged in the plaintiff, has both the benefit of protecting rights at the time of filing the lawsuit, and the administrative disposition subject to cancellation becomes invalid due to the lapse of the period.