[Official letter] Inquiry and Opinion on the Card Point Payment System for Refugee Applicants’ Living Allowance_Korea Refugee Rights Network.pdf
0.24MB
[Press release] Turning the Living Allowance into a Consumption Coupon_Press Conference Urging Withdrawal of the Plan to Pay Refugee Applicants’ Living Allowance as Card Points.pdf
0.33MB
The Ministry of Justice Must Withdraw Its Plan to Pay Refugee Applicants’ Living Allowance as Card Points
Press Conference Urging Withdrawal of the Plan to Pay Refugee Applicants’ Living Allowance as Card Points, “Turning the Living Allowance into a Consumption Coupon”
On June 23, 2026, the Ministry of Justice signed a “Business Agreement for Supporting the Living Allowance of Refugee Applicants” with Woori Card Co., Ltd. and announced that from September it would pay the living allowance given to refugee applicants as card points instead of the existing bank transfer. In effect, it announced that it would pay the living allowance like a consumption coupon.
However, the living allowance of refugee applicants is not a consumption coupon meant to steer the use of particular services or to achieve administrative purposes. Under Article 40 of the Refugee Act, it is a system that supports refugee applicants who have difficulty making a living, such as pregnant women, older persons, people accompanying infants and young children, and people with illness or disabilities, so that they can maintain a minimum standard of living during the initial six months when employment is restricted.
If this living allowance for refugee applicants is paid as card points that restrict cash withdrawal and online payment, there is great concern that it will deepen the hardship and housing insecurity of refugee applicants. The points cannot cover housing costs that require cash payment, such as monthly rent, and refugee applicants will be unable to buy inexpensive daily necessities through online shopping. This runs counter to the purpose of a living allowance system established to guarantee a minimally decent life.
In major social security systems aimed at sustaining livelihoods, such as the National Basic Livelihood Security System and the Emergency Aid and Support system, the principle is to pay in cash so that recipients can use the money freely according to their own living circumstances and specific needs. This is because the expenses needed for a livelihood vary with each individual’s situation. Even so, applying a point payment method with restricted places of use only to refugee applicants adds unnecessary restrictions and burdens, and imposes payment conditions that are disadvantageous and discriminatory compared with other social security systems aimed at sustaining livelihoods.
The Ministry of Justice cites “concern about use for purposes other than the intended one” as the basis for card point payment, but it has not disclosed any objective data or empirical evidence to support this. Without data on actual cases of such misuse, their proportion among all recipients, the process of fact-checking, or the status of recovery measures, it is hard to say that uniformly restricting the places where the living allowance can be used meets the requirements of necessity and proportionality of the policy. Controlling and monitoring the spending of an entire vulnerable group on the premise of suspicion without objective grounds may result in institutionalizing prejudice and distrust toward refugee applicants.
What the Ministry of Justice should focus on now is not cooperation with a card company. The priority should be to work with banks and other financial institutions to remove the institutional barriers to opening accounts, so that refugee applicants who have difficulty opening accounts can have stable access to financial services. Furthermore, to improve the reality that long review periods for the living allowance shorten the period in which support can actually be received, the Ministry should shorten the review period and guarantee a substantive support period. The current amount of the living allowance should also be raised to a level that guarantees a realistic minimum standard of living, and the scope of eligibility should be expanded so that no refugee applicant is excluded from support by strict selection criteria. Improving the system to substantively guarantee the livelihood of refugee applicants is the task the Ministry of Justice should pursue first now.
We therefore strongly demand the following of the Ministry of Justice.
First, the Ministry of Justice must immediately withdraw its plan to pay the living allowance as card points, which restricts the rights of refugee applicants and fosters distrust without objective grounds.
Second, in paying the living allowance for refugees, the Ministry must guarantee the principle of cash payment, as in other social security systems such as the National Basic Livelihood Security.
Third, the Ministry must give priority to improving the system to substantively guarantee the livelihood of refugee applicants, by working with financial institutions to remove institutional barriers to opening accounts and by shortening the review period to guarantee a substantive support period.
August 12, 2026
건강사회를 위한 치과의사회, 건강사회를 위한 치과의사회 부산경남지부, 노무사사무소 별, 대전 참의료 실현 청년 한의사회, (사)아시아의 창, 소수자난민인권네트워크, 연구공동체 ‘건강과대안’, 울산이주민센터, 이주인권 셋, 이행移行: 이주민 인권을 위한 행정사 모임, 인권운동공간 활, 인권운동네트워크 바람, 인권운동사랑방, 인도주의실천의사협의회, 인도주의실천의사협의회 대전충남세종지회, 차별금지법제정연대, 참여연대, 천주교인권위원회, 트랜스보더링랩(Trans-border-ing Lab), 화성외국인보호소방문시민모임 마중, 난민인권네트워크(TFC(The First Contact for Refugee), 공익법센터 어필, 공익변호사와 함께하는 동행, 공익사단법인 정, 공익인권법재단 공감, 공익인권센터 드림(DREAM), 국제난민지원단체 피난처, 글로벌호프, 난민인권센터(NANCEN), 동두천난민공동체, 동두천가톨릭센터, 동작FM, 민주사회를 위한 변호사모임 국제연대위원회, 비영리단체 겨자풀, 사단법인 두루, 성가소비녀회 의정부관구 동두천 베타니아, 성가소비녀회 의정부관구 파주 베타니아, 수원글로벌드림센터, 순천이주민지원센터, 아시아의친구들, 아시아평화를향한이주MAP, 이주여성을위한문화경제공동체 에코팜므, 이주민지원공익센터 감동, 외국인이주노동자인권을위한모임, 의정부 EXODUS, 이주민센터 친구, 천주교제주교구이주사목센터 나오미, 재단법인 동천, 재단법인 화우공익재단, 제주평화인권연구소 왓, 참여연대, 파주EXODUS, 한국이주인권센터), 대전충남보건의료연대회의(건강사회를위한 치과의사회 대전충남지회, 건강사회를위한 청년한의사회 대전충남지회, 인도주의실천의사협의회 대전세종충남지회, 대전 희망진료센터, 민들레 의료복지사회적협동조합)
외국인이주·노동운동협의회(남양주시외국인복지센터, 다문화너머서, 모두를위한이주인권문화센터, 부천이주노동복지센터, 순천이주민지원센터, 아산이주노동자센터, 아시아인권문화연대, 외국인이주노동자인권을위한모임, 원불교서울외국인센터, 의정부이주노동자센터, 이주민센터동행, 인천외국인노동자센터, 파주이주노동자센터샬롬의집, 포천나눔의집이주민지원센터, (사)한국이주민건강협회위프렌즈, (사)한국이주여성인권센터), 이주구금대응네트워크((사)한국알트루사 난민과함께살기, DLG 공익인권센터, 공익법단체 두루, 공익법센터 어필, 공익인권법재단 공감, 난민인권센터, 대한불교조계종 사회노동위원회, 소수자난민인권네트워크, 아시아평화를향한이주MAP, 울산이주민센터, 외국인·이주노동운동협의회, 이주노동자노동조합(MTU), 이주노동자인권·노동권 실현을 위한 대구경북지역연대회의, 이주노동자평등연대, 이주민지원공익센터 감사와 동행, 이주여성인권포럼, 천주교인권위원회, 트랜스보더링랩(Trans-boder-ing Lab), 화성외국인보호소방문시민모임 마중), 이주노동자평등연대(건강권 실현을 위한 보건의료단체연합(건강권 실현을 위한 행동하는 간호사회, 건강사회를 위한 약사회, 건강사회를 위한 치과의사회, 노동건강연대, 인도주의실천의사협의회, 참의료실현청년한의사회), 노동당, 노동사회과학연구소, 노동전선, 녹색당, 대한불교조계종사회노동위원회, 성공회용산-혜화나눔의집, 민변노동위원회, 사회진보연대, 이주노동자노동조합(MTU), (사)이주노동희망센터, 이주노동자운동후원회, 이주민센터친구, 인권운동네트워크 바람, 전국민주노동조합총연맹, 전국불안정노동철폐연대, 지구인의정류장, 천주교인권위원회, 필리핀공동체카사마코, 한국비정규노동센터)