모두보기닫기

전체 10 개

  • Complaint Regarding Deportation

    Gist of Complaint (2002)
    The complainant, who visited his former employer to receive a back pay in the amount of KRW1 million, was assaulted by the employer and his two sons. The altercation loosened his two front teeth. Although the complainant filed a report with the 00 Police Station, it handed the complainant over to the respondent on grounds that he was an illegal alien. The respondent, in turn, decided to deport the complainant. Contending that this is unfair, the complainant requested that his detention be temporarily suspended in order to seek civil remedial procedures concerning his back pay and injury.

    Determination and Judgment by the Commission
    Given that the complainant was the actual victim of violence and is accordingly entitled to pursue civil remedial procedures regarding his injury; his back pay remains unsettled; he could not voluntarily report his illegal stay because he was apprehended during the period of voluntary reports by illegal aliens; and that a pastor requested temporary suspension of his detention by promising to guarantee his personal identity, it is expected that his deportation by the respondent will be an irremediable violation of rights against the complainant. Thus, the Commission suggested that the head of the 00 Immigration Office temporarily suspend detention of the complainant

  • Complaint Against Deportation During Divorce Proceedings

    Gist of Complaint
    In December 1999, the victim who is a Chinese national of Korean descent married a Korean man who was a wholesaler of herbal medicine. After the report of their marriage was filed, the victim entered the Republic of Korea in mid 2000 and lived with the man in the country for about two months. However, she discovered that her husband was cohabitating with another woman in China. In an effort to get a divorce, the victim appointed an attorney-at-law and initiated divorce proceedings. During the process, she intended to move from 00 to 00 after paying a fine to the 00 Immigration Office (the office of competent jurisdiction) to redress her position as an illegal alien. However, the 00 Immigration Office deported her on grounds that she was an illegal alien, which is deemed unfair.

    Determination and Judgment by the Commission
    The respondent did not waive payment of a deposit, nor specify a reasonable and clear amount of the fine payable by the victim from a humanitarian perspective in consideration of the facts that the victim was in divorce proceedings and was apprehended while visiting the Daejeon Immigration Processing Center to extend her stay. Rather, the respondent offered only a vague indication that the amount of the fine would be at most KRW10 million. As a result, the victim failed to file for temporary suspension of detention and was deported. Ten days after her deportation, the court decided in her favor, ruling that " It is acknowledged that elopement by the victim's ex-husband brought their marriage to an end, and this falls under the grounds for divorce under Subparagraph 2, Article 840 of the Civil Act (when a person deserts his or her spouse maliciously) and Subparagraph 6, Article 840 of said Act (when there is material reason that renders maintenance of marriage difficult)."
    If the victim had not been deported, she would have been entitled to apply for naturalization under the Nationality Act. Nonetheless, the respondent deported her, which constitutes excessive application of the law without due consideration of surrounding circumstances. The victim is prohibited from entering the Republic of Korea for three years. Based on its determination that this violates the victim's right to pursue happiness as guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution, the Commission recommended to the Minister of Justice in March 2005 that said regulation be lifted so that the victim may obtain Korean citizenship.

  • Emergency Relief Against Deportation

    Gist of Complaint (2003)
    At about 23:00, June 22, 2003, two foreigners robbed a taxi driver only known as Im (who is not a party to this complaint) of KRW20,000 at the pedestrian crossing at Shiheung Crossroads, Shiheung Bon-dong. The respondent charged the victims with the crime of quasi-robbery on the mere basis of their statements while under the influence and the taxi driver's statements even though they were not the robbers in question. The victims are awaiting deportation at the Hwaseong Immigration Processing Center. Since the detention and the planned deportation of the victims were a result of intentional disregard for standard investigation procedure by the respondent, remedial measures are requested.

    Determination and Judgment by the Commission
    The respondent arbitrarily changed 'illegal alien' in the prosecutor's written order to 'criminal.' The head of the Seoul Immigration Office decided to deport the victims on the basis of the falsified documentation. Therefore, the process can hardly be deemed lawful. The victims have consistently asserted their innocence of the crime and offered an alibi. Accordingly, if the victims are deported without confirmation of their guilt or innocence in the commission of the crime, they will suffer irremediable damage. Thus, the Commission recommended that the deportation of the victims be suspended and that the victims be released from detention.

  • Complaint Regarding Facilities and Treatment at Immigration Processing Center

    Gist of Complaint (2005)

    Overcrowded facilities, restrictions on physical exercise, etc. at an immigration processing center.


    Determination and Judgment by the Commission

    The crowding of up to 18 foreigners in a 10-person protection room instead of using additional available protection space by the 00 Immigration Office constitutes a violation of human dignity and personal freedom guaranteed under Articles 10 and 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. It has also been confirmed that neither outside nor inside physical exercise was permitted for the foreigners accommodated in the protection room, which overly limited the personal freedom of those foreigners and thus represents a violation of personal freedom under Article 12 of the Constitution and human dignity under Article 10 of the Constitution. Thus, the Commission recommended in April 2005 that overcrowding be prevented; an outside or inside exercise area be opened so that detained foreigners may exercise once a day; and female foreigners be handled only by female staff.

  • Complaint Against Violence in Immigration Processing at Immigration Processing Center

    Gist of Complaint

    Violence perpetrated by public service personnel and lack of proper medical attention at an immigration processing center, concealment of the violent acts, etc.


    Determination and Judgment by the Commission

    The neglect by the head and officers of the 00 Immigration Office of acts of excessive force by public service personnel and use of restraining devices against foreigners under detention, failure to swiftly and accurately report acts of violence against foreigners by public service personnel and to provide adequate medical attention prior to a protest visit by human rights group staff, and an attempt to misrepresent injury to the victim without making an effort to accurately clarify facts regarding the case are acknowledged as dereliction of duty in management and oversight of foreigners under protection and in prevention and remedying of human rights abuses. According to the Commission, the acts by the respondent, etc. violated the victim's human dignity and right to pursue happiness (Article 10 of the Constitution) and personal freedom (Article 12 of the Constitution).


    In April 2005, the Commission recommended that the Minister of Justice take actions to prevent recurrence of similar cases, including issuing a written warning against the head of the investigation department of the 00 Immigration Office, reprimanding the employees involved, bringing charges against the public service personnel before the prosecutor-general, and prohibiting the use of handcuffs by public service personnel.

  • Complaint Against Violence in Crackdown Process

    Gist of Complaint

    Electric shock devices were used and harsh acts were perpetrated in the crackdown process. The injured victim was left unattended at the scene of the crackdown.


    Determination and Judgment by the Commission

    No objective materials evidence the use of electric shock devices in the crackdown process. In the process of clamping down on the complainant, however, a letter of emergency protection was not issued. The statements by the persons concerned and photographs of the victim's injury indicate that the officers in charge of the crackdown assaulted the victim with their fists and feet or committed other harsh acts against the victim. In an attempt to conceal the situation, the respondent moved the injured complainant to the Immigration Office's protection room without administering even minimum humanitarian medical attention. Then, the respondent left the complainant unattended at the scene of the crackdown, which constitutes a violation of human dignity and value as well as personal freedom under Articles 10 and 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the Commission recommended that two chief officers in charge of the crackdown be disciplined for such violation.

  • Complaint Against Prohibiting South Korean National from Inviting His Spouse's Chinese Child to South Korea

    Gist of Complaint

    On May 3, 1996, the complainant married a woman known as Park, a Chinese national of Korean ancestry. At the time of their marriage, the complainant gave up entering Park's then eight-year-old daughter, known as Kwon, in the family register. In order to adopt Park's daughter, however, the complainant entered Kwon in his family register and requested the 00 Immigration Office to issue a visa for her on October 29, 2004, but the application was rejected.

    Respondent's Argument

    Visa issuance was not permitted because the victim's uncle and aunt on the mother's side had been staying in South Korea illegally.

    Determination and Action by the Commission
    ① Article 10(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by the government of the Republic of Korea on December 20, 1991 stipulates that " applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be handled by States Parties in a positive, humane, and expeditious manner." Article 10(2) of the Covenant provides that " State Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their own country."
    ② Article 23(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the government of the Republic of Korea on July 10, 1990 stipulates that " The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state"
    ③ Article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ratified by the government of the Republic of Korea on July 10, 1997 provides that " The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children."
    These covenants stipulate that a government must provide special protection to children and is also obligated to protect the family. Therefore, the aforesaid action by the respondent is deemed in violation of such international covenants. The Commission recommended in February 2005 that rejection of the complainant's application for visa issuance be retracted and that such visa issuance be permitted.

  • Complaint Against Prohibiting Chinese Spouse from Entering South Korea

    Gist of Complaint

    The complainant, known as Kim, began courtship with the Korean-Chinese, known as Oh, in about June 2001. They have been living together since November 2001. The victim, who was an illegal alien, voluntarily reported her stay to the respondent on August 30, 2002 for the purpose of getting married legally. After paying a fine of KRW1.5 million, the victim received an order to depart from the Republic of Korea. In compliance with the order, the victim left the country on September 3, 2002. After her departure, the complainant and victim reported their marriage in China on November 13, 2002 and in the Republic of Korea on November 14, 2002. However, the respondent prohibited the victim from entering the Republic of Korea for five years on grounds of her previous illegal stay in the country, which is deemed unreasonable.


    Determination and Action by the Commission

    The respondent's prohibition of the victim from entering the Republic of Korea for five years is seen to be in conflict with the government's obligation to accord protection and assurance to the family as provided by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and international covenants. Given the facts that the complainant and victim voluntarily reported the victim's illegal stay for their marriage and paid a fine prior to the victim's departure and that the complainant has visited the victim's country several times to date to maintain their marriage, it is deemed reasonable to allow them to maintain their marriage in a normal manner by lifting the ban on the victim's entry into the country, as this would be in accordance with a humanitarian spirit. In September 2003, the Commission recommended that the Minister of Justice, the head of the supervisory authority of the respondent, lift the ban on the victim's entry into the country.

  • Complaint Against Prohibiting Chinese Spouse from Entering South Korea

    Gist of Complaint
    The complainant, known as Kim, and the Korean-Chinese victim, known as Kim, are a legally-wedded couple who reported their marriage in China on May 23, 2002 and in the Republic of Korea on June 24, 2002. On August 19, 2002, said victim was deported from the Republic of Korea due to two illegal sojourns as well as for engaging in activities outside of the conditions of her stay in the country. The victim is now barred from entering the country. The complainant hopes that entry by the victim into the country will be permitted at the earliest possible date so that they may maintain their marriage in a normal fashion.

    Determination and Judgment by the Commission
    The victim was deported from the Republic of Korea twice for using a passport with a false name. Furthermore, the victim was deported from the country as a result of running a coffee shop, which was not permitted under the conditions of her stay. It is acknowledged that the complainant and victim remain married legally and virtually. Since their marriage is deemed genuine, it was determined in November 2002 that lifting the prohibition on the victim's entry into the Republic of Korea would be reasonable because it would be in accordance with the government's obligation to accord the widest possible protection to the family under Article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the government's obligation to guarantee that family life will be sustained on the basis of individual dignity under Article 36(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

  • Complaint Regarding Deportation

    Gist of Complaint (2002)

    The complainant, who visited his former employer to receive a back pay in the amount of KRW1 million, was assaulted by the employer and his two sons. The altercation loosened his two front teeth. Although the complainant filed a report with the 00 Police Station, it handed the complainant over to the respondent on grounds that he was an illegal alien. The respondent, in turn, decided to deport the complainant. Contending that this is unfair, the complainant requested that his detention be temporarily suspended in order to seek civil remedial procedures concerning his back pay and injury.

    Determination and Judgment by the Commission

    Given that the complainant was the actual victim of violence and is accordingly entitled to pursue civil remedial procedures regarding his injury; his back pay remains unsettled; he could not voluntarily report his illegal stay because he was apprehended during the period of voluntary reports by illegal aliens; and that a pastor requested temporary suspension of his detention by promising to guarantee his personal identity, it is expected that his deportation by the respondent will be an irremediable violation of rights against the complainant. Thus, the Commission suggested that the head of the 00 Immigration Office temporarily suspend detention of the complainant.

확인

예 아니오