"National Deception": Yoo Seung-jun Abandons Plans to Return to Korea? Lawyer Has Not Yet Responded [★FOCUS]

*This content was translated by AI.

Regardless of whether this signals an abandonment of plans to enter Korea ahead of the second-instance appeal in his third visa issuance lawsuit, Yoo Seung-jun's lawyer continued to argue for the validity of his entry into South Korea.

The Seoul High Court's 8-2 Administrative Division (B) held the first trial session on July 3 for the appeal case filed by Yoo Seung-jun against the U.S. Consulate General in Los Angeles seeking cancellation of the visa denial decision. The court collected both parties' positions, concluded the trial proceedings, and scheduled a verdict announcement for September 4.

The Seoul High Court's 8-2 Administrative Division (B) held the first trial session on July 3 for the appeal case filed by Yoo Seung-jun against the U.S. Consulate General in Los Angeles seeking cancellation of the visa denial decision.

On that day, the lawyer for the U.S. Consulate General in Los Angeles stated, "The first-instance court clearly ruled that Yoo Seung-jun's past behavior was indeed an act of abandoning university purposes to evade military service. Since the Yoo Seung-jun case, relevant laws have been amended, and multiple institutional measures have been established to prevent similar cases from recurring again—measures now even referred to as the 'Yoo Seung-jun Prevention Law.' Yoo Seung-jun has effectively become an icon of military service evasion in South Korean society. We believe the conclusion of the first-instance ruling was not based on any necessary legal reasoning but rather leaned too heavily toward overly lenient judgment."

Continuing, the lawyer added, "Considering the intent behind the first-instance ruling, even if Yoo Seung-jun committed past wrongs, it has been many years since then. Preventing him from entering South Korea to this day seems like an excessively severe measure, which appears difficult to justify as a purely legal judgment. The issuance of an F-4 visa would effectively integrate the foreign national Yoo Seung-jun into South Korea's social, economic, and cultural fabric. It is questionable whether it is appropriate for the state to grant such benefits to a foreign national who voluntarily renounced South Korean citizenship for the purpose of evading military service."

The lawyer further stated, "Yoo Seung-jun abandoned his South Korean citizenship by evading military service and openly deceived the nation, causing great disappointment among citizens. Many young people in South Korea are currently fulfilling their military obligations, or have already done so. Some may feel compelled to serve because the law mandates it and the Constitution requires military duty. In such a context, if visas were issued in this case, it could create a mistaken perception that one can evade military service by deceiving the state to obtain only U.S. citizenship, or by leaving the country and enduring until the age of military service termination, thereby obtaining overseas Korean visas and enjoying benefits virtually identical to those of citizens within South Korea. This poses a significant risk of undermining the fundamental principle of constitutional military duty."

In contrast, Yoo Seung-jun's lawyer responded, "The defense side has not mentioned anything about the first lawsuit's Supreme Court ruling or the second-instance judgment. They are repeating the same argument for ten years. Essentially, they are saying that because he evaded military service, public sentiment prevents his entry. Rephrased, this is no different from stating, 'Regardless of any court ruling, I will not issue a visa.' The essence of this case is not about military evasion but about the rule of law. Under the rule of law, there are no grounds for entry bans under the Overseas Koreans Act or the Immigration Control Act. We ask the court to carefully examine the illegality of the entry ban decision."

Previously, the Seoul Administrative Court's 5th Division, which handled the first-instance trial, ruled in favor of Yoo Seung-jun on the 1st, 2025. In response, the U.S. Consul General in Los Angeles filed an appeal through legal representatives, contesting the first-instance verdict.

At that time, the court stated, "It is difficult to consider that Yoo Seung-jun's words and actions pose a threat to South Korea's national security, public order, or diplomatic relations. When comparing the public interest gained by banning Yoo Seung-jun from entry with his private interests, the degree of infringement on him was greater, constituting a violation of the principle of proportionality."

However, the court also clarified, "This ruling does not imply that Yoo Seung-jun's past behavior was appropriate. Even if his entry were permitted and he resided in Korea, given the sufficiently matured level of public awareness, there is no concern that his presence or activities would harm South Korea's interests or safety." Additionally, regarding Yoo Seung-jun's lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Ministry of Justice's 2002 entry ban decision did not exist, the first-instance court dismissed all claims, stating, "The decision lacks actionable nature and is not subject to judicial review."

Yoo Seung-jun has been unable to set foot on Korean soil for 24 years amid military service evasion controversies, continuing lawsuits to cancel visa denial decisions and request entry permission three times.

However, in June, Yoo Seung-jun expressed his intention to end the tedious 24-year struggle through a video titled "I've Done Enough; I'm Ready to Stop."

Yoo Seung-jun wrote, "This may be the last video like this. I have suffered greatly over the years and tried various ways to convey my feelings. Actually, I didn't start this channel to tell my story initially, but eventually found myself repeating the same narrative again. However, just as truth doesn't change because people don't recognize it, if you understand my feelings, that is enough."

He continued, "I have asked myself countless times, 'Why can't I forget Korea and why do I miss it so much?' Answering this question led me to realize. Now, there is no need for me to spend more time and passion explaining the reasons, clarifying misunderstandings, or defending myself. For years, I maintained my YouTube channel while rarely uploading videos because I wanted to correct misconceptions, waiting for a day when I could speak properly. But now, I am truly okay. Simply being able to communicate with you is enough. Thank you sincerely for listening to my story and supporting me."

He further confessed, "Looking back, I have stubbornly lived for a very long time just to prove one fact: 'I am not the person they claim.' Of course, I still believe that is true. But now, even if someone thinks differently about me, it's okay. I have already received so much love; there are countless things to be grateful for, and above all, I am happy. If anyone has been hurt because of me, I kindly ask for their forgiveness with a generous heart."

Yoo Seung-jun had promised the public he would enlist but left for the U.S. at the end of 2001 using the return guarantee system alongside postponement of his military service. At that time, the Military Manpower Administration reportedly accepted a written commitment from Yoo Seung-jun stating he would return immediately after completing performances in Japan and the U.S., and approved his departure. However, Yoo Seung-jun broke his promise to the Military Manpower Administration, obtained U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles in 2002, renounced his South Korean citizenship, landed at Incheon International Airport in February of that year but failed to pass immigration inspection, stayed for six hours, and then returned to the U.S. His entry was banned under Article 11 of the Immigration Control Act, which prohibits entry for individuals whose presence may harm national interests.

Subsequently, Yoo Seung-jun applied for an overseas Korean visa (F-4) at the Los Angeles Consulate General in October 2015. When the consulate denied his application, he filed a lawsuit and won two final rulings from the Supreme Court. However, the Los Angeles Consulate General again refused to issue a visa in June 2024. Yoo Seung-jun launched a third lawsuit in September 2024, seeking cancellation of the denial decision and filing a separate suit against the Ministry of Justice to confirm the non-existence of an entry ban decision. In this third administrative lawsuit, the Ministry of Justice clearly maintained its position that Yoo Seung-jun's entry cannot be permitted.

In the first lawsuit in 2015, the court stated, "The Military Manpower Administration requested a ban on entry because Yoo Seung-jun effectively evaded military duty by obtaining U.S. citizenship. The Minister of Justice issued an entry ban decision. Yoo Seung-jun applied for an F-4 visa as an overseas Korean but was denied. He obtained U.S. citizenship to evade his military obligation as a South Korean citizen. If Yoo Seung-jun enters and continues broadcasting and entertainment activities, it could lower morale among soldiers, weaken the will to fulfill military obligations, and encourage a trend of evading military duty among teenagers approaching enlistment age. This would hinder the performance of national defense duties stipulated in Article 39, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, endanger territorial integrity, disrupt South Korea's legal order, and harm national interests, public safety, social order, and good morals."

However, after being appealed to the first instance and then the second instance, the case was sent back by the Supreme Court in 2017, reversing the previous stance. Ultimately, the case returned to the Seoul High Court and led to a precedent favorable to Yoo Seung-jun, resulting in a final victory at the Supreme Court in March 2020.

Immediately after the Supreme Court ruling, Yoo Seung-jun conveyed through his legal representative, "I sincerely appreciate this Supreme Court ruling. I deeply recognize the concerns and criticisms caused to society during this period and will strive to contribute even slightly to society in the future. I will always reflect on the meaning of public criticism and live with a posture of lifelong repentance."

However, regarding the final Supreme Court judgment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated through an official position that "the Ministry of Justice, Military Manpower Administration, and other relevant ministries will cooperate closely during Yoo Seung-jun's visa review process and decide on visa issuance based on lawful discretion." Ultimately, citing that "the essence of the Supreme Court ruling was procedural issues in the visa denial process," they rejected Yoo Seung-jun's visa application again, causing his plans to return to Korea to fail once more.

Yoo Seung-jun, who had nearly abandoned the lawsuit, filed another administrative lawsuit against the U.S. Consulate General in Los Angeles in October 2020 after being persuaded by his lawyer. However, the first-instance court ruled against him in April 2022.

During this period, Yoo Seung-jun attempted to express his grievances but even made a controversial statement claiming, "I never intended to join the military." He also added sophistry such as, "The promise was sincere, but I failed to fulfill it." Furthermore, Yoo Seung-jun named overseas Korean singers who were active with him when he was at the peak of his popularity and argued, "Why target only me?" When he had already been assigned to public service duty and was about to enlist but left for the U.S. and returned only to face entry denial, his complaint that "military enlistment would create a gap in my singing career" could only be interpreted as an argument asking for understanding that he could not serve in the military.

However, time passed, and Yoo Seung-jun, now 43 years old, is no longer subject to visa issuance bans under current laws even if he acquired foreign nationality to evade military service and lost South Korean citizenship, becoming a foreign national. Exceptions allow visa issuance if the Minister of Justice deems it necessary. Freed from restrictions under the Act on the Entry and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans (hereinafter "Overseas Koreans Act"), when the lawyer for the U.S. Consulate General in Los Angeles raised doubts again about Yoo Seung-jun's purpose of entry, stating, "We cannot help but question whether Yoo Seung-jun's stated purpose of entry aligns with what is claimed in this lawsuit," Yoo Seung-jun responded, "Although overseas Koreans should not receive special privileges, we recommended a visa based on their status. Since they could not apply for other visas or be judged without overseas Korean residence status, they applied for an overseas Korean residence visa." This marked a slightly different atmosphere compared to the first lawsuit.

Ultimately, the court stated, "The plaintiff committed military service evasion in 2002, and this action poses a risk of harming South Korea's interests under the Overseas Koreans Act and falls under grounds for excluding visa issuance; however, this pertains to the old Overseas Koreans Act before the 2017 revision. While acquiring foreign nationality for the purpose of evading military service may constitute grounds for excluding visa issuance, if there is no general residence reason after turning 38 years old, there is no reason to refuse visa issuance. Under the Overseas Koreans Act, even if foreign nationality was acquired, if one is over 38 years old, residence status is permitted unless it falls under general regulations. The decision document refusing visa issuance only mentions the act of military service evasion itself and does not list separate reasons for excluding the application of these regulations; therefore, the refusal decision is illegal. This aligns with the essence of the previous Supreme Court ruling on this case."

The

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

*This content was translated by AI.