Supreme Court: State Must Compensate May 18 Victims' Families for Mental Damages... Statute of Limitations Not Expired

"Exercising the Right to Claim Compensation Was Practically Impossible Before the Unconstitutionality Ruling"

The Supreme Court has ruled that the statute of limitations has not expired for claims by victims of violence committed by martial law forces during the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement and their families to seek compensation for mental damages from the state.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on June 4, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Eom Sang-pil) overturned a lower court's partial dismissal of a damages lawsuit filed by victims and bereaved families of the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement against the state, and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court.

This case began when some of the victims and their families, who had previously received compensation under the Gwangju Democratization Movement Compensation Act for damages suffered at the hands of martial law forces during the May 18 movement, filed additional lawsuits seeking further compensation from the state for mental damages.

The key issues in the trial were whether, given the passage of a long period of time, the statute of limitations had expired for the families' claims for damages, and whether siblings and other family members could also seek compensation for mental harm.

The Supreme Court recognized the families' independent right to claim compensation for mental damages. In particular, regarding the state's argument that the statute of limitations had expired, the court found that "until the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality, there were practical obstacles that made it impossible for the plaintiffs to exercise their right to claim compensation for mental damages."

Previously, in May 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that a provision in the law that barred individuals from seeking separate state compensation for mental damages if they had already received compensation was unconstitutional.

The lower courts recognized, based on the Constitutional Court's decision, that claims for mental damages were possible. However, they rejected or only partially recognized claims by siblings and certain other family members on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired or that the legal requirements were not met.

However, the Supreme Court held that "the lower court was mistaken in denying or limiting the families' independent right to claim compensation," and remanded the case for a retrial, instructing the lower court to re-examine the plaintiffs' claims for mental damages.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.