The Supreme Court has finalized a ruling that imposing an exit ban on a lawyer during the investigation into the Seongnam FC sponsorship allegations without notifying the individual was unlawful. The decision marks the first time the Supreme Court has established criteria for judging the legality of deferring notification of an exit ban decision and its extension.
The Supreme Court's First Division (Justice Seo Kyung-hwan presiding) on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that ordered the state to pay 5.855 million won to attorney Baek, a former auditor of Seongnam FC, in a damages suit filed against the government.
The Seongnam branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, while investigating the Seongnam FC sponsorship case on September 25, 2022, requested that the Ministry of Justice issue an exit ban on attorney Baek and defer notification of the decision. The ministry imposed the exit ban the following day and extended it until December 24, without informing Baek of the measure.
Baek discovered the exit ban on December 8 while attempting to depart from Incheon International Airport to attend a bar association event. Although the ban was lifted at his request, the flight he had booked had already departed, and he was ultimately unable to leave the country. Baek filed suit against the Ministry of Justice, arguing that the exit ban and the deferral of notification were unlawful, and sought 30 million won in consolation damages as well as compensation equivalent to the cancellation fee for the event.
The first and second instance courts ruled that while the exit ban itself was lawful, the failure to notify was unlawful. They found that it was difficult to conclude that notifying the individual of the exit ban decision would cause a serious and clear obstruction to the criminal investigation, and therefore deemed the deferral of notification unlawful. The first instance court explained that "Korea guarantees the opportunity to contest an exit ban, but if a person only learns of the ban upon arriving at the airport, even contesting it would likely make same-day departure impossible, and even if another flight is hastily booked, planned schedules would be disrupted." The court added that "deferral of exit ban notification should be permitted only exceptionally."
The first instance court ordered the Ministry of Justice to pay Baek 1.855 million won, consisting of 1 million won in consolation damages plus 855,000 won for the event cancellation fee.
The appellate court also sided with Baek. It maintained the 855,000 won cancellation fee and raised consolation damages to 5 million won, recognizing total damages of 5.855 million won. The second instance court explained that "the exit ban period nearly reached three months, the point at which deferral of notification is no longer permitted," adding that "the deferral of notification could have damaged his professional credibility and social reputation."
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's judgment. "The ground for exceptionally permitting deferral of notification of an exit ban decision — namely, 'cases in which there is deemed to be a concern of serious and clear obstruction to criminal investigation' — must be interpreted strictly, such as limiting it to cases in which there is a high probability that notification itself would cause the subject of the exit ban or criminal suspect to flee or destroy evidence," the court stated.
