Paying the Fine Forecloses the Fight: Seoul Administrative Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Immigration Penalty Notice

By Juwon Kang, August 17, 2026

Case No. 2026Guhap50232, Seoul Administrative Court, 10th Administrative Division (Presiding Judge Jung Eun-young), Decided April 29, 2026

Factual Background

Company A and its representative, B, operated a business in Jongno-gu, Seoul. In September 2025, the Seoul Immigration and Foreigner Office issued each of them a notice of disposition (tonggo cheobun) requiring payment of a 9 million won penalty, on the grounds that they had employed two foreign nationals without work authorization. A notice of disposition is an administrative procedure allowing an agency to require payment of a set penalty from a person suspected of a legal violation, without a formal criminal trial; failure to pay results in referral to investigative authorities and a possible criminal prosecution.

A and B each paid the 9 million won penalty that same month. They later filed suit against the Republic of Korea seeking a declaration that they had no obligation to pay the penalty, arguing that the foreign nationals had merely helped out without receiving wages and therefore were not “employed,” and that they paid the penalty only because they feared the workers would otherwise be deported, making the payment involuntary and invalid.

Court’s Decision

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on procedural grounds, holding that anyone who disputes a notice of disposition must decline to pay the penalty and instead contest the matter in a criminal trial.

The court explained that a person who objects to a notice of disposition can obtain judicial review by refusing to pay the penalty, which triggers referral by the immigration authorities and subsequent adjudication by a court. Filing an administrative lawsuit on the theory that the disposition itself was unlawful is not a permitted avenue for relief.

Further, once the penalty is paid, the payer cannot be punished again for the same conduct; payment of the penalty carries an effect equivalent to a final and binding judgment. There is no provision under current law allowing a person to pay an immigration-related penalty and subsequently recover it through administrative litigation.

Why This Matters

This decision underscores a critical procedural trap for employers facing immigration-related penalty notices: paying the fine forecloses any later opportunity to contest the underlying violation. Practitioners advising clients who receive a tonggo cheobun for alleged immigration law violations should flag, before any payment is made, that the only route to judicial review is to refuse payment and allow the matter to proceed to referral and a criminal trial, where the merits can actually be contested. Once payment is made, it operates with the finality of a confirmed judgment, and no statutory mechanism exists to reclaim the funds through an administrative suit, even where the payment was made under perceived duress or based on a mistaken understanding of the underlying facts. This ruling is particularly relevant for businesses employing foreign nationals in ambiguous arrangements, where the temptation to pay quickly to avoid immigration consequences for workers can permanently foreclose a stronger legal argument on the merits.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=223401