Background
Our client, A, had run a company that fell into difficulty, leaving substantial taxes unpaid, and returned to Korea after a long period abroad. After A's return, the authorities (the Ministry of Justice) imposed a travel ban on the ground of "tax arrears," and renewed it repeatedly every six months. Yet A had already been declared bankrupt and discharged and had no assets at all, while the freedom to travel abroad remained suspended indefinitely.
What Was at Stake
It was true that the taxes had gone unpaid. But a travel ban imposed on tax grounds exists to prevent assets from being moved abroad so as to frustrate enforcement; it is not a device for detaining a person, or pressuring them into payment, merely because taxes are outstanding. In other words, barring departure without examining whether there is any "risk of assets being moved abroad" is impermissible — yet the authorities kept renewing the ban on nothing more than vague suspicion.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun focused on objectively proving that "A has no assets to move abroad, and no risk of doing so." ▲ A's assets had already been liquidated through the court's bankruptcy declaration and discharge order, and A had no occupation and no property. ▲ Long-past stays abroad and the immigration and spending records of family members likewise could not be treated as evidence of hidden assets (A's children each had their own jobs and income). We rebutted each point with documentary evidence, showing that the "risk of asset flight" invoked by the authorities had no concrete foundation.
The court accepted Changchun's arguments, held that the travel ban exceeded the bounds of administrative discretion and was therefore unlawful, and revoked it (with costs borne by the authorities). The judgment makes clear that even where taxes are in arrears, the fundamental right to travel freely cannot be restricted indefinitely unless a genuine risk of asset flight is established. Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and may differ.