It's been 24 years now... Yoo Seung-jun, accused of evading military service, resumes third lawsuit to enter Korea in July

*This content was translated by AI.

The second-instance appeal trial for Yoo Seung-jun's third lawsuit seeking a visa to enter Korea will begin in July.

The 8-2 Administrative Division (B) of the Seoul High Court will hold the first debate session on July 3 for the appeal trial of the lawsuit filed by Yoo Seung-jun to revoke the decision by the U.S. Consulate General in Los Angeles to deny his visa application.

Previously, the 5th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court, which handled the first-instance trial, ruled in favor of Yoo Seung-jun on the first-instance judgment announcement date in August 2025. In response, the Consul General in Los Angeles, disagreeing with the first-instance judgment result, filed an appeal through his legal representative.

At that time, the court ruled that "it is difficult to consider that Yoo Seung-jun's words and actions would be likely to harm the interests of national security, public order, or diplomatic relations of the Republic of Korea," and stated that "when comparing the public interest gained by banning Yoo Seung-jun from entering the country with his private interest, the degree of infringement on Yoo Seung-jun is greater, which constitutes a violation of the principle of proportionality."

However, the court added, "This judgment result does not in any way mean that the court considers Yoo Seung-jun's past actions to be appropriate." It further stated, "Even if Yoo Seung-jun is permitted to enter and reside in Korea, considering the sufficiently matured level of public awareness, there is no concern that his presence or activities would pose any disadvantage or threat to Korea's safety." Additionally, in the first-instance trial of the lawsuit filed by Yoo Seung-jun claiming that "there is no 2002 entry ban decision by the Ministry of Justice," the court rejected all claims, stating that "the decision lacks actionable nature and is not subject to judicial review."

Yoo Seung-jun, who has not set foot in Korea for 24 years amid controversy over military service evasion, has continued to file lawsuits three times, requesting the revocation of visa denial decisions to allow his entry.

Yoo Seung-jun, who had promised the public that he would enlist, left for the United States at the end of 2001 using the return guarantee system along with a postponement of his military service. It is reported that at the time, the Military Manpower Administration received a written pledge from Yoo Seung-jun stating that he would return immediately after completing his performance schedule in Japan and the United States, and approved his departure. However, Yoo Seung-jun broke his promise with the Military Manpower Administration, went through the process of acquiring U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, USA in 2002, renounced his Korean nationality, and landed at Incheon International Airport in February of that year but was unable to pass immigration inspection, staying for six hours before returning to the United States. He was banned from entry under Article 11 of the Immigration Control Act, which prohibits the entry of individuals whose presence may harm the interests of the Republic of Korea.

Subsequently, Yoo Seung-jun applied for an F-4 visa for overseas Koreans at the Los Angeles Consulate General in October 2015. When the Los Angeles Consulate General denied the application, he filed a lawsuit and received two final victory judgments from the Supreme Court. However, the Los Angeles Consulate General denied the visa (F-4) issuance again in June 2024. In September 2024, Yoo Seung-jun filed a third lawsuit, including a lawsuit to revoke the denial decision and a lawsuit to confirm the non-existence of the entry ban decision against the Ministry of Justice. In the third administrative lawsuit, the Ministry of Justice clearly stated its position that it cannot allow Yoo Seung-jun to enter the country.

In the first lawsuit in 2015, the court ruled that "the Minister of Military Manpower Administration requested an entry ban on the grounds that Yoo Seung-jun had effectively evaded his military service obligation by acquiring U.S. citizenship, and the Minister of Justice made an entry ban decision. Yoo Seung-jun applied for an F-4 visa, which corresponds to the status of an overseas Korean, but the application was denied." The court further stated "Yoo Seung-jun acquired U.S. citizenship to evade his military service obligation as a citizen of the Republic of Korea. If Yoo Seung-jun enters the country and continues his broadcasting and entertainment activities, it is likely to lower the morale of military personnel, weaken the will to fulfill military service obligations, and create a trend of evading military service among teenagers who are about to enlist. This would hinder the performance of the national defense obligation stipulated in Article 39, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, endanger the preservation of the territory, and disrupt the rule of law in the Republic of Korea, thereby harming the interests of the Republic of Korea, public safety, social order, and good morals."

However, the atmosphere of this lawsuit, which was transferred after the first-instance appeal and second-instance appeal, turned around when the Supreme Court overturned the original judgment in 2017. Ultimately, the lawsuit, which was remanded to the Seoul High Court, led to a precedent favorable to Yoo Seung-jun, and he finally obtained a victory judgment from the Supreme Court in March 2020.

Immediately after the Supreme Court judgment, Yoo Seung-jun conveyed through his then-legal representative, "I sincerely appreciate the Supreme Court's judgment. I have deeply recognized the parts that caused concern to society and the criticism, and I will strive to be of some help to society in the future. I will always reflect on the meaning of the public's criticism and live my life with an attitude of lifelong repentance."

However, regarding the final judgment of the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated through an official position that "we will cooperate closely with relevant ministries such as the Ministry of Justice and the Military Manpower Administration during the visa review process for Yoo Seung-jun, and we will decide whether to issue a visa to Yoo Seung-jun through the proper exercise of discretionary authority." Ultimately, citing the ground that "the intent of the Supreme Court's judgment is that there was a procedural issue in the visa denial process," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected Yoo Seung-jun's visa application again, and his trip to Korea was once again canceled.

Yoo Seung-jun, who was on the verge of giving up the lawsuit, filed an administrative lawsuit against the Consul General in Los Angeles again in October 2020 after being persuaded by his lawyer.

At that time, the atmosphere was also unfavorable for Yoo Seung-jun in many ways. The social stigma of being a "military service evader" had some persuasiveness, and both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice directly expressed critical views toward Yoo Seung-jun. The first-instance court then ruled in favor of the defendant in April 2022.

Amid this, Yoo Seung-jun, trying to appeal his grievance, even made a reckless remark that "I never intended to go to the army." He also added sophistry such as "The promise was sincere, but I failed to fulfill that promise." Furthermore, Yoo Seung-jun dragged out the real names of overseas Korean singers who were active with him when he was at the peak of his popularity as a top star, and argued with the logic of "Why are you targeting only me?" When Yoo Seung-jun, who had already been assigned to public service duty and was about to enlist, left for the United States and returned but was denied entry, he complained that "his singing activities would be interrupted due to military enlistment," which can only be interpreted as a logic asking for understanding that he could not enlist.

However, as time passed, Yoo Seung-jun, now 43 years old, was no longer subject to the restrictions under the Act on the Entry and Exit of Overseas Koreans and Their Legal Status (hereinafter referred to as the Overseas Koreans Act), which prohibits visa issuance for those who acquired foreign nationality and lost Korean nationality to evade military service, but allows issuance if the Minister of Justice deems it necessary. When the lawyer for the Los Angeles Consulate General raised doubts again about Yoo Seung-jun's purpose of entry, stating, "I cannot help but question whether Yoo Seung-jun's purpose of entry matches what is claimed in this lawsuit," Yoo Seung-jun responded, "Although it is said that overseas Koreans should not be given special privileges, we recommended them regarding their purpose of entry. Since they could not apply for other visas and be judged if they did not have overseas Korean residence status, they applied for an overseas Korean residence visa." This slightly different atmosphere from the first lawsuit also drew attention.

Ultimately, the court stated, "The plaintiff committed military service evasion in 2002, and this action is likely to harm the interests of the Republic of Korea under the Overseas Koreans Act and falls under the grounds for excluding visa issuance, but this corresponds to the old Overseas Koreans Act before the 2017 revision." The court further stated, "Acquiring foreign nationality for the purpose of evading military service may fall under the grounds for excluding visa issuance, but if there is no general reason for residence after turning 38 years old, there is no reason to refuse visa issuance. Under the Overseas Koreans Act, if an overseas Korean has acquired foreign nationality but is over 38 years old, residence status is allowed unless it falls under general regulations. The decision to refuse visa issuance only mentions the act of military service evasion itself, and no separate reason for excluding the application of the above regulation is mentioned, so the refusal decision is illegal. This is also consistent with the intent of the Supreme Court's judgment in the previous case."

The court also ruled, "Apart from the plaintiff's act of military service evasion in 2002, there was no separate situation that falls under the grounds for refusing visa issuance. Although there was widespread public outrage regarding the plaintiff's suspicion of military service evasion, and critical public opinion existed regarding the domestic residence of overseas Koreans with foreign nationality, the court has an obligation to judge the matter according to the Constitution and laws. According to current laws, even if it is military service evasion under the Overseas Koreans Act, if the person has exceeded a certain age, residence status is allowed unless it falls under general reasons."

Meanwhile, Yoo Seung-jun, through his YouTube channel on the 9th, released a video titled "From now on, I will speak for myself! For those who remember me... Yoo Seung-jun Q&A begins," and shed tears while reading comments from fans who supported him, saying, "Thank you. You don't need to apologize to me; I am the one who should apologize." He added, "I am sorry again for leaving such memories. If given the opportunity, I will strive to create only good memories."

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.