Rulings on visa refusals, entry denials and entry bans · 4 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 famous singer applied to a consulate general for a visa under the overseas Korean residence status and was refused. The singer won a lawsuit to cancel the first refusal, and the judgment became final. After receiving a second refusal, the singer filed a lawsuit seeking its cancellation.
What did the court decide?
The court found the second refusal lawful. It said that because the flaw in the first decision was corrected before the new decision was made, it did not conflict with the effect of the earlier final judgment. Considering how the applicant failed to perform military service and lost nationality, and the applicant's later attitude, the court found a risk of harming the interests of the Republic of Korea. It judged that the public interest in not issuing the visa outweighs the disadvantage to the applicant, and that the decision does not violate the principle of equality.
The plaintiff, an entertainer who enjoyed wide popularity, lost Republic of Korea nationality after obtaining US citizenship. The Minister of Justice imposed an entry ban on the plaintiff, and a visa was also refused. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, arguing that both were unlawful.
What did the court decide?
The court said it could not be found that the plaintiff applied for citizenship to avoid military service from the start. However, considering the notice to report for public service personnel duty, the postponement of that call-up, and the process of departure and obtaining citizenship, it found that the plaintiff obtained citizenship to avoid the military service obligation. It held that the entry ban did not violate the principles of necessity, proportionality and equality, and was lawful. Because the entry ban was lawful, it held that the visa refusal was also lawful and did not exceed or abuse discretion.
The head of the immigration office issued an entry denial against a U.S. national who received a suspended prosecution for smoking cannabis. A lawsuit was filed to dispute whether this decision was unlawful.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the entry denial by the head of the immigration office exceeded and abused discretionary power, making it unlawful. Therefore, the court canceled the decision.
Six plaintiffs completed marriage registration with women of Chinese nationality. To bring the women to Korea, they applied for a visa issuance confirmation for residence (F-2). The agency refused because, in light of the plaintiffs' ages and financial capacity, it doubted the genuineness of the marriages, and because it had been notified of an appraisal result that the submitted certificate was not a properly issued document. The plaintiffs sued to cancel this refusal.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the plaintiffs were only persons who applied on behalf of the Chinese women and had no right to apply themselves. It held that the disadvantage the plaintiffs suffer from the refusal is merely an indirect, factual interest as inviters or application agents. It therefore found that the plaintiffs had no standing to seek cancellation of the decision and dismissed the suit.
This collects 4 rulings on Rulings on visa refusals, entry denials and entry bans. 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.
