Rulings on departure orders, deportation and detention orders, crackdowns, exit bans and fines · 18 cases
This is an AI summary of the points published by the court, put in plain language. Always check the original for the exact content and conclusion of the ruling. It is not legal advice and cannot be applied as-is to other cases.
The plaintiffs received a notification disposition imposing a fine under the Immigration Act. The plaintiffs argued that the notification disposition was invalid. On that basis, they filed a suit seeking confirmation that they have no duty to pay the fine under the notification disposition.
What did the court decide?
The court held that disputing the duty to pay by arguing that the notification disposition is unlawful or that the effect of the fine payment has lapsed cannot be a subject of an administrative lawsuit. Therefore, the court found the plaintiffs' suit inadmissible.
A person staying in Korea as a recognized refugee was released from prison after a criminal sentence, and a detention order was issued. The person was then designated for deportation. After refusing to sign the deportation order, the person was again ordered to be detained until removal became possible. An objection to this order was rejected, and when a renewed objection was also rejected, a lawsuit was filed to cancel the rejection decision.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the decision rejecting the objection is an independent administrative disposition and can therefore be challenged in court. Even though the detention order's effect had ended, disadvantageous conditions were attached when detention was lifted, so cancelling the decision would restore an interest, and the legal interest in suing was also recognized. However, a separate ruling had already become final, finding the deportation order lawful, and this detention order does not depend on the initial detention order, so any defect did not carry over. The person who sued lost.
A person who entered on Working Holiday (H-1) status received a departure order on the grounds of illegal employment, and a lawsuit was filed over the order.
What did the court decide?
The court examined the nature of the work, working hours and pay, and how the person came to obtain the status. As a result, it found it difficult to conclude that the work went beyond what Working Holiday status allows.
An exit ban was first imposed on the grounds that leaving the country was not appropriate because of a criminal investigation. Afterward, for over two years and one month, measures extending the exit ban period in 1-month increments were repeated. A lawsuit was filed over the extension measure.
What did the court decide?
The court found that physical evidence in the criminal case had already been secured. It also found that ties and roots with family members living in Korea were relatively clear. For these reasons, it judged that grounds for banning departure could no longer be regarded as met, and it revoked the measure extending the exit ban period.
A foreign national entered the country around October 2021 carrying 506 tablets of clonazepam, a psychotropic drug. The person received a suspended indictment on suspicion of violating the Narcotics Control Act. When the immigration authority (the defendant) issued a departure order, the plaintiff asked the court to cancel it, arguing that the harm to the plaintiff was far greater than the public interest sought, making the order excessively harsh.
What did the court decide?
The court held that, in deciding on the entry and exit of foreigners, the public interest in protecting the state's interests and security is to be given greater weight than the individual's disadvantage. It found that drug crimes carry a high risk of harming public health and have a very serious negative effect on society as a whole. It said that the claim that the person did not know the medication prescribed in the home country was a controlled drug under Korean law did not show that the person was free of fault. The court therefore found no abuse or excess of discretion in the departure order and dismissed the claim.
A foreign worker was running away to avoid a crackdown on unauthorized stayers. While jumping over a wall, the worker suffered a broken bone. The worker filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Justice seeking damages. The worker lost in the first trial and appealed.
What did the court decide?
The appeals court did not accept the damages claim. It dismissed the appeal against the first-instance judgment.
There was a foreign national who had been punished 3 times for drunk and unlicensed driving. This person was described as a Joseonjok (ethnic Korean from China). The head of the immigration office issued a departure order to this foreign national, and whether the measure was justified was disputed.
What did the court decide?
The court ruled that the departure order issued by the head of the immigration office to a foreign national who had been punished 3 times for drunk and unlicensed driving was justified.
The head of the Cheongju Immigration Office issued a deportation order and a detention order against a foreign national, the plaintiff. The plaintiff's economic, social and cultural life had been rooted only in the Republic of Korea. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of these orders.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the plaintiff's illegal stay and illegal employment arose from the parents' fault, not from the plaintiff's own unlawful acts. It therefore held that the plaintiff could not be regarded as so anti-social as to justify forced removal, and cancelled the deportation order and others.
The plaintiff took part in talk concerts and spoke on 4 occasions. A deportation order was issued against the plaintiff, and the lawfulness of that measure was disputed. The plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a tourist visa and has lived in the United States since 2003.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the plaintiff could not be regarded as a person who committed an offense under the National Security Act. However, it found that the remarks contained content recognizing the legitimacy of North Korea's system and regime and that could lead people to mistake North Korea for a human-rights and welfare state, and that social conflict actually deepened. It therefore recognized a risk that the plaintiff would harm the interests of the Republic of Korea or public safety. It held that the plaintiff's private interest infringed by the measure was not more significant than the public interest, so the deportation order was lawful.
The plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a passport bearing a changed name. In the statement submitted with the naturalization application, the date of first entry was misstated. Even after the name change, the plaintiff still had a passport in the previous name, used it to enter and leave, and did not disclose having a passport in another name.
What did the court decide?
The court said that entering on a passport in a changed name does not, by itself, mean entering with an invalid passport. However, it found that the plaintiff had tried to avoid re-entry restrictions by using a passport through which records of violations such as illegal stay were hard to check. It held that such entry can be regarded as an act harming national interest or social order, and that the plaintiff is therefore a person subject to deportation under the Immigration Act.
The former Immigration Act had a provision making a person who was sentenced to confinement or a heavier penalty and released subject to deportation. The disputed issues were whether a person tried without detention and given a suspended sentence of confinement or heavier falls under this provision, and whether the disposition exceeded discretionary authority.
What did the court decide?
The court held that 'released person' includes anyone sentenced and freed from court proceedings, whether or not arrested or detained during investigation or trial. This includes those whose sentence is not yet carried out, those whose execution of sentence was suspended or exempted, and those who have completed it. Considering all the circumstances the plaintiff raised, the court found it hard to say the disadvantage was excessive compared with the public interest, or that discretion was exceeded or abused.
The plaintiff, a Chinese national, had received fine dispositions and suspended prosecution dispositions while staying unlawfully, for forging and using a resident registration card, assault, and drunk driving and causing injury. The Director of the Incheon Immigration Office issued a departure order to the plaintiff under the Immigration Act. A lawsuit was filed against it.
What did the court decide?
The court determined that the Director's departure order could not be regarded as exceeding the scope of decision-making authority or misusing that authority. It therefore found the departure order lawful.
The case concerned whether a foreigner who was not detained and then received a suspended sentence falls under the category of persons subject to deportation in Article 46, paragraph 1, item 13 of the Immigration Act. Under this provision, persons subject to deportation are 'persons sentenced to imprisonment or a heavier penalty and released'.
What did the court decide?
The court found that a foreigner who was not detained and then received a suspended sentence is 'a person sentenced to imprisonment or a heavier penalty and released' under Article 46, paragraph 1, item 13 of the Immigration Act.
This is a lawsuit brought by a person who received a departure order against the authority that issued it. The disputed issues were whether the departure order is a disposition subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, and whether the recipient could sufficiently understand its basis and reasons.
What did the court decide?
The court found that this departure order does not fall under the exceptions to the Administrative Procedure Act and is a disposition subject to that Act. It also found that, even considering not only the content of the departure order document but also the whole process leading to the order and the relevant laws, it is hard to say the recipient could sufficiently understand which facts and laws the order was based on. Therefore, the court held that a departure order whose basis and reasons are not clearly stated is unlawful.
The authority issued a deportation order and a detention order to a Pakistani national residing under the corporate investment (D-8) status, on the ground that a reason specified in Article 11(1) of the Immigration Act existed. The foreign national filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation, arguing the orders were unlawful.
What did the court decide?
The court examined the public-interest nature of immigration administration, the investigation details from the arrest to the settlement and the seriousness of the offense, prior criminal record, business scale, family relations, and the need to stay. It found reasonable grounds to recognize a risk that this person would harm the interests, security and order of the Republic of Korea, and cause considerable harm to social order and public morals. It therefore judged that the deportation order and detention order did not exceed or abuse discretion, and dismissed the claim.
A departure order was issued against a plaintiff of foreign nationality who tested positive for cannabis in urine and hair tests, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit over it.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the plaintiff falls within the categories of persons subject to a departure order under the Immigration Act, such as a drug addict or a person recognized as likely to harm public health. It also found it difficult to see the departure order against such a plaintiff as exceeding or abusing discretionary authority.
A person who applied for refugee status worked with permission for about 4 months and then received a decision denying refugee recognition. The person objected to the Minister of Justice, and the work permit period ended during the review. A new permit application was denied. The person was caught working without permission and received a deportation order and a detention order.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the deportation order and the detention order exceeded and abused discretionary authority, and cancelled them. It noted that the Refugee Handbook provides that asylum applicants are to be able to stay in the country during the review period, and that the Refugee Act, in force from July 1, 2013, recognizes living-cost support or work permits. It found that, when a decision takes well over 1 year, blocking all work conflicts with the constitutional spirit of a civilized nation. It concluded that the applicant could not be deemed to have abused the asylum application.
What do the Departure Orders, Deportation & Enforcement rulings cover?
This collects 18 rulings on Rulings on departure orders, deportation and detention orders, crackdowns, exit bans and fines. Each case is laid out as what happened, then how the court ruled.
Can I apply a ruling directly to my own case?
No. A ruling decides the facts of that one case, so the outcome can differ for another case. For your own situation, check with an official body such as the immigration office with jurisdiction.
Where can I read the original ruling?
Each case has a “view original” link to the public post on the Supreme Court of Korea website. KoreaMoa does not reproduce full rulings; it only provides summaries.
