In an administrative lawsuit appealing against the issuance of a Korean entry visa for singer Seung-jun Yoo (45, American Steve Seung-jun Yoo), the court requested that the 'national identity' of Mr. Yoo be sorted out.
Administrative Division 9-3 of the Seoul High Court (Judge Cho Chan-young Kang Moon-kyung Kim Seung-ju) today (22nd) held the first hearing date of the appeal trial for the cancellation of the refusal to issue passports and visas (visa) issued by Yoo against the consul-general in Los Angeles (LA). Opened.
The court asked Mr. Yoo to "examine whether the plaintiff is a 'foreigner' as stipulated in Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, a 'overseas citizen' as stipulated in Article 2 Paragraph 2, or both.
Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates that "the status of foreigners is guaranteed under international law and treaties."
Article 2, Paragraph 2 states, "The state has an obligation to protect its citizens overseas as stipulated by law."
Regarding Yoo's mention of 'foreigners' basic rights' in the reason for appeal, the court pointed out, "In the case of the plaintiff, the words are a little strange, but he is not a 'complete foreigner'."
The defendant also requested, "Please provide a legal interpretation of what differences and commonalities exist in the legal rules between 'foreigners' under the Immigration Control Act and 'overseas Koreans' under the Overseas Koreans Act.
Will you be legally considered a foreigner?
The purpose of this is to collect opinions from both sides, as there may be differences in how the Overseas Koreans Act is applied depending on whether they are considered overseas Koreans.
This trial is the appeal of the second administrative lawsuit filed by Mr. Yoo, dissatisfied with his visa issuance.
Yoo, who obtained U.S. citizenship to avoid military service and was restricted from entering Korea in 2002, tried to enter the country with an overseas Korean visa, but was denied the issuance and filed the first administrative lawsuit in 2015.
In March 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, saying that it was illegal for the Consulate General of Los Angeles to refuse to issue a visa without exercising its discretion.
After that, Yoo applied for a visa again, but when it was rejected again, he filed an administrative lawsuit for the second time in October 2020, saying that it is a disposition that goes against the purpose of the Supreme Court decision.
However, the court of first instance in the second lawsuit dismissed Yoo's claim, seeing that the Supreme Court's ruling was that 'there was a procedural illegality in refusing to issue a visa', not that 'a visa should be issued to Mr. Yoo'.
(Photo = Yonhap News)