Immigration control administration is an area in which the state's sovereignty is exercised and has characteristics that distinguish it from other administrations. The Constitutional Court said, “The immigration control administration is a national administration that promotes the interests and safety of the nation by appropriately controlling and adjusting the immigration and stay of domestic and foreign nationals. As such, it can be said that it is an area that lies in the realm of broad policy discretion. Therefore, in judging whether the exercise of public power in this area is unconstitutional, the ‘relaxed examination standard’ should be applied.” 2003 hunma 87

The Seoul Administrative Court said, “The right of a state to expel foreigners it deems undesirable from its own country is a right established under international law. In determining whether or not to forcefully evict foreigners, the public interest aspect of promoting the interests and safety of the nation should be emphasized more than the disadvantages to the person concerned.” 2009 guhap 44898

In addition, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled that “matters regarding the entry and exit of foreigners must be strictly managed in light of the fact that they are essential to the functioning of a sovereign state.” 2011 guhap 21430

Therefore, when judging whether the principle of proportionality is violated, it is necessary to recognize that the scope of discretion is also broad, considering that the immigration control administration is part of the exercise of state sovereignty and aims to promote national safety and order.
On the other hand, even if measures such as permission for entry and deportation of foreigners belong to the exercise of sovereignty inherent in the state, if the measures go against humanitarianism or the notion of justice according to the recent international trend of human rights, it is a principle of deviation and abuse of discretion. International condemnation and isolation, as well as national responsibility, cannot be avoided, so careful exercise is required.
From the standpoint of a state's inherent sovereign exercise and the protection of foreigners' human rights, even if the right to deny entry or expel a foreigner belongs to a state's inherent sovereign exercise, the basic human rights stipulated in international human rights law should be guaranteed to foreigners as well. something to do. When performing immigration affairs, a conflict arises between the public interest of national interest protection and the private interest of individual human rights protection, so a reasonable compromise must be found between the state's exercise of sovereignty and the protection of foreigners' human rights.
The Ministry of Justice’s Immigration Office for Immigration and Immigration Affairs has recently increased the number of cases of defeat due to reasons such as deviation or abuse of discretion in immigration review decisions. It has been instructed to make a reasonable review decision after thoroughly investigating whether there is willfulness or negligence, the status of family relations and sojourn in Korea, and whether there is a living base in Korea.
In order to ensure the responsiveness of administration and the complexity and specialization of immigration administrative functions, more and more cases are being delegated to front-line immigration control officials. In addition, there is a growing possibility that front-line immigration control officials will exercise considerable discretion in the process of delivering immigration control administrative services through the specificity of immigration work, which is the exercise of state sovereignty, and detailed decisions and interpretations of laws and guidelines. As such, there are frequent situations in which immigration control officials exercise their discretion in the course of carrying out their duties while directly contacting civil petitioners, who are customers, at the civil petition site. In particular, most of the customers who use the immigration service are foreigners living in an unfamiliar culture and environment and experiencing communication difficulties.
Although it is a problem for immigration control officials to abuse their discretion when performing their duties, it is also an administrative matter to intentionally evade or passively exercise discretion, despite the fact that it is possible to exercise discretion within the scope of authority, due to concerns about disadvantages in status in the event of an audit or civil complaint. It can have a negative impact on customer-oriented aspects such as responsiveness and reliability. Accordingly, how they exercise their discretionary power can have a great impact on the perception and trust of the immigration control administration among customers, so it is necessary for immigration control officials to exercise their discretion appropriately within the framework of laws and regulations. Park Gil-Nam, “A Study on the Impact of Job Conditions of Immigration Officers on Customer Orientation in the Policy Execution Process”, University of Seoul Graduate School of Public Administration Doctoral Dissertation, 2018, p. 148.