Yoo Seung-jun to Receive 'Visa to Korea'... Wins Second Trial, Ministry of Foreign Affairs "Reviewing Response" (Comprehensive)

Court: "After long deliberation and agreement..."
Application of 'Exception Clause for Refusal of Issuance Over Age 38'
Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "Consulting with Ministry of Justice on Follow-up Legal Actions"

Singer Yoo Seung-jun (46, Steve Seung-jun Yoo) won his appeal in the second administrative lawsuit he filed to obtain a visa allowing him to enter South Korea, overturning the first trial's ruling against him. The government plans to review whether to seek a Supreme Court ruling and consider subsequent responses.

On the afternoon of the 13th, the Seoul High Court Administrative Division 9-3 (Presiding Judges Jo Chan-young, Kim Mu-shin, Kim Seung-joo) overturned the first trial ruling that ruled against Yoo in the second trial of his lawsuit against the Consulate General in Los Angeles (LA) for cancellation of the refusal to issue a passport and visa.

The court stated, "We recognize that Yoo's draft evasion act caused widespread social conflict in 2002, and even now, more than 20 years later, there is a strong social voice that his residence status should not be allowed," but added, "The court must judge according to the Constitution and laws. The old Overseas Koreans Act applied in this case stipulates that even if foreign nationality was acquired for the purpose of draft evasion, if the person is over a certain age (38 years old) and there are no separate acts or circumstances distinguishing the case, residence status must be granted. After long deliberation and consensus, this ruling is made."

Under the old Overseas Koreans Act, the Minister of Justice does not grant residence status if there is concern that it may harm South Korea's interests such as national security, public order, public welfare, or diplomatic relations. However, there is a proviso that exempts those who have reached the age of 38. In the 2017 amended provision, the age in the proviso was raised to 41.

The court said, "The government applied the current Overseas Koreans Act, amended in 2017, when making this decision. However, since it was determined that the old law should apply to those who applied for overseas Korean residence status before the amendment took effect, the current Overseas Koreans Act cannot be applied to Yoo's 2015 application."

Furthermore, "Previous Supreme Court rulings also judged that once the person reached 38 years old, residence status for overseas Koreans could not be restricted unless there were 'other' special circumstances," and "The government's decision document contains no 'separate' reasons," the court ruled.

After the ruling, Yoo's representative said, "The authorities must issue the visa-related certificate Yoo previously applied for in accordance with the court's ruling," and "Yoo can complete the residence status process and enter the country." However, if the government appeals the second trial ruling, the issuance may be postponed until the Supreme Court decision is made.

The government plans to review whether to contest the second trial loss and seek a Supreme Court ruling. A Ministry of Foreign Affairs official stated, "We will consult with related agencies, including the Ministry of Justice, regarding subsequent legal responses."

Previously, Yoo acquired U.S. citizenship to evade military service, resulting in a ban on his entry into South Korea in 2002. Yoo attempted to enter the country with an Overseas Korean (F-4) visa, but when the issuance was denied, he filed an administrative lawsuit in 2015 and won a Supreme Court ruling in 2020.

However, even after the Supreme Court ruling, the LA Consulate General again refused Yoo's visa issuance application. The decision document explained, "According to Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Overseas Koreans Act, the grounds for exclusion from granting overseas Korean residence status include cases where there is concern that it may harm South Korea's national security, public order, public welfare, or diplomatic relations." Ultimately, Yoo filed another administrative lawsuit in October 2020.

In the first trial of this case, Yoo lost in April last year. The first trial court held that the Supreme Court ruling only indicated that there was a procedural illegality in the visa issuance refusal, not that Yoo must be issued a visa.

It also stated, "Yoo's existence causes great loss and deprivation to South Korean soldiers and their families who have risked their lives and endured much pain and danger while serving in frontline or difficult areas," and "Currently, in unavoidable cases, he can obtain a short-term visit (C-3) visa by stating reasons and temporarily lift the entry ban from the Ministry of Justice to visit Korea."

Yoo appealed the first trial ruling and won in the appeal trial held on this day.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.