Rulings on immigration authorities refusing to disclose information · 3 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.
A lawsuit was filed against the decision to refuse disclosure of the manual on the detention of foreign nationals and the integrated manual on custody of immigration offenders, both prepared by the Ministry of Justice.
What did the court decide?
The court found that neither manual falls under the non-disclosure grounds set out in the Information Disclosure Act. It therefore cancelled the decision to refuse disclosure.
This is a lawsuit concerning a request for information disclosure. The issue was whether a foreign national who resides in Korea but whose period of stay has expired has the right to request information disclosure.
What did the court decide?
The court found that a foreign national who resides in Korea but whose period of stay has expired also has the right to request information disclosure.
A non-profit organization established to protect refugees asked for a video file recording an asylum applicant's refugee interview to be sent over an information network for disclosure. The agency that made the decision refused. Its reasons included that the video contains personal information such as the interpreter's voice, and that viewing the video was allowed, so the purpose of the request could be achieved. It did not allow the file to be copied.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the interpreter's voice was a direct interpretation of what the applicant said, and that the interpreter worked in the public sphere of refugee status review. It therefore found it hard to see a risk of infringing the secrecy or freedom of private life. It also said that asylum applicants are linguistically and psychologically vulnerable, so having previously viewed the video does not mean the purpose of the request was achieved. Finding that disclosure was necessary for the relief of the rights of an applicant who objected to a refugee non-recognition decision, or for the public interest, it ruled the refusal unlawful.
This collects 3 rulings on Rulings on immigration authorities refusing to disclose information. 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.
