Detained at Airport Due to Unnotified Exit Ban... Supreme Court: "Deferred Notification Is Illegal, State Must Compensate"

"A High Degree of Probability of Flight or Evidence Destruction Required"

The Supreme Court has acknowledged the state's liability for damages in a lawsuit filed by a lawyer who was subject to an overseas travel ban but was not notified and only learned of the restriction at the airport. This marks the first instance in which the Supreme Court has set a standard for determining the illegality of a deferred notification of an exit ban.

Yonhap News Agency

On May 8, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Seo Kyunghwan) dismissed both parties' appeals in a damages case filed by lawyer A against the Republic of Korea. As a result, the previous ruling ordering the state to pay A a total of 5,855,000 won—including a cancellation fee of 855,000 won and compensation for mental distress of 5 million won—has been finalized.

This case began when the Seongnam branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, while investigating the Seongnam FC sponsorship case, requested the Ministry of Justice to impose an overseas travel ban and defer notification for lawyer A, who had served as an auditor for a related organization. In September 2022, the Ministry of Justice decided to impose an exit ban on A but did not notify him. The ministry further extended the exit ban twice without notifying A each time. In December of the same year, A visited Incheon International Airport to attend a bar association exchange event and learned of the exit ban for the first time. Although the exit ban was lifted that day, his reserved flight had already departed.

The key issues were whether the decisions to impose and extend the exit ban were unlawful, and whether the deferred notification to the individual was also illegal. The Supreme Court determined that the decisions to impose and extend the travel ban were not unlawful, stating that there were grounds under the Immigration Control Act and that there was no evidence of abuse or deviation of discretionary power. However, the court upheld the lower court's ruling that the deferred notification was illegal.

For the first time, the Supreme Court explicitly established criteria for judging the illegality of deferred notification of an exit ban in this case. The Immigration Control Act stipulates that, in principle, a person subject to an exit ban must be notified in writing without delay. Exceptionally, deferral of notification is permitted only “when it is recognized that there is a substantial and clear risk of causing significant obstruction to a criminal investigation.” The Supreme Court clarified that this exception must be interpreted strictly. Deferral of notification is permitted only in cases where there is a “high degree of probability” that notifying the subject of the exit ban would lead the individual or principal suspects or key witnesses to flee or destroy evidence.

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