In the First Trial of the 'Second Visa Lawsuit,' Yoo Seung-jun's Side Asks, "Is This a Matter to Be Controversial for 20 Years?"

Singer Yoo Seung-jun (American name Steve Seung-jun Yoo) [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] "I question whether this is an issue that should continue for nearly 20 years. They refuse visas citing social controversy upon visa denial, but we must carefully consider who is truly responsible for creating such controversy."

At 3:31 p.m. on the 3rd, during the first hearing of Mr. Yoo's lawsuit against the Los Angeles (LA) Consulate General seeking cancellation of passport and visa denial, held by the Administrative Division 5 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Jeong Sanggyu), Yoo's legal representative stated, "The denial of issuance violates the principles of proportionality and equality. There are no other cases where such a denial has been made."

Previously, Mr. Yoo was restricted from entering the country in 2002 due to controversy over military service evasion. Thirteen years later, in 2015, he applied for entry with an overseas Korean visa but was denied. He filed a lawsuit and ultimately won at the Supreme Court two years ago. However, the LA Consulate General did not issue the visa even after the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court's decision only stated that proper procedures were not followed during the visa denial process, not that a visa must be issued. Consequently, Mr. Yoo filed another lawsuit.

On this day, Yoo's legal representative argued, "From the beginning, (Mr. Yoo's) acquisition of U.S. citizenship was not for the purpose of evading military service," and added, "The defendant side is escalating public opinion and stirring controversy, which is not beneficial to our lives or national interests."

He also emphasized, "The overall intent of the Supreme Court ruling was that the visa should be issued," and stated that although the Supreme Court provided standards for discretionary authority, the Consulate and Ministry of Foreign Affairs ignored them.

On the other hand, the defendant argued, "The Supreme Court ruling does not practically order visa issuance," and "Looking at cases in the U.S. and Japan, judicial review of visa issuance is restrained, and broad administrative discretion over issuance must be fully considered."

They added, "People ask, 'Why only me?' but strict standards are not applied only to Mr. Yoo," and "Those who renounce nationality for the purpose of evading military service are sanctioned using all measures allowed by law."

The court asked both parties to "clarify legal arguments regarding relevant regulations," and scheduled the next hearing for August 26 at 3:30 p.m.