Third Visa Lawsuit Appeal Begins for Yoo Seung-jun, Banned from Entering Korea for 24 Years

The appellate court ruling on the third lawsuit regarding the visa issuance for singer Yoo Seung-jun (49, American name Steve Seungjun Yoo) to enter South Korea is scheduled for September.

Yoo is seeking a visa under the status of an overseas Korean.

The Seoul High Court's Administrative Division 8-2 (Presiding Judges Kim Bong-won, Lee Young-chang, and Choi Bong-hee) held the first hearing for the second trial of the lawsuit filed by Yoo against the Consul General of the Republic of Korea in Los Angeles to cancel the refusal of visa issuance today (July 3), stating, "We will deliver the verdict on September 4 at 2:00 p.m."

The legal representative for the LA Consul General criticized the first-instance ruling in favor of Yoo, stating, "I wonder if it was an excessively lenient judgment rather than a legal one."

The representative continued, "Yoo has become an icon of draft evasion in South Korean society," and criticized him, saying, "He caused great disappointment by blatantly deceiving state agencies."

The representative also emphasized, "Among the public, there are those who do not want to fulfill their military duty but do so because it is required by law," adding, "If the first-instance ruling is upheld, it could send the wrong Signal to the public."

The representative pointed out that Yoo and his family can enter the country for short-term visits even without a visa.

The representative added, "An overseas Korean visa is a residency status that allows one to enjoy almost the same rights as a national, such as acquiring real estate and receiving health insurance benefits. It is questionable whether it is appropriate to allow Yoo, who gave up his nationality for the purpose of evading military service, to enjoy these benefits."

In response, Yoo's legal representative countered, "The LA Consul General's side has been saying the same thing for 10 years. It is ultimately an argument that 'he cannot be let in due to public sentiment,'" adding, "The Supreme Court has already ruled that there are no grounds for an entry ban."

The trial held today is the second instance of the third lawsuit filed by Yoo against the Consul General in LA after his visa application was rejected.

Yoo, who debuted in 1997 and was an active singer in Korea, had promised on television to enlist in the military. However, after leaving the country for a performance in January 2002, he acquired U.S. citizenship and was exempted from military service.

As public criticism against Yoo intensified, the Ministry of Justice restricted his entry based on the Immigration Control Act, citing that there were reasonable grounds to believe he might commit acts that could harm the interests or public safety of the Republic of Korea.

In August 2015, when he turned 38, Yoo applied for a visa with an overseas Korean (F-4) residency status at the Korean Consulate General in Los Angeles.

The former Overseas Korean Act allowed for the granting of overseas Korean residency status to those who had lost their nationality for the purpose of evading military service once they reached the age of 38.

However, the LA Consulate General rejected the visa application in September of that year, and Yoo filed his first lawsuit to have the decision overturned.

After a remand and a re-appeal, he eventually won a final victory at the Supreme Court, but the LA Consulate General refused issuance again, stating, "Yoo's evasion of military service could harm national interests."

In response, Yoo filed a second lawsuit in October 2020 and won a final victory at the Supreme Court in November 2023 as well.

However, when the LA Consulate General rejected the visa issuance again in June 2024, Yoo filed a third lawsuit in September of that year.

In August of last year, the first-instance court for the third lawsuit ruled in favor of Yoo once again, stating, "Compared to the public interest gained from the visa refusal, the disadvantages suffered by the plaintiff are excessively large, constituting an illegal deviation from and abuse of discretion that violates the principle of proportionality."
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.