Constitutional Court Refers Brothers Home 'Mental Damages Only' State Compensation Case to Full Bench

Dispute Over Recognition of Compensation for Economic Damages

A constitutional petition arguing that limiting the state's liability for compensation related to the Busan Brothers Home case solely to mental damages is unconstitutional has been referred to the full bench of the Constitutional Court.

Constitutional Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News

On August 11, the Constitutional Court held a conference of a three-judge panel and preliminarily approved the constitutional petition filed by the bereaved family of victim A from the Brothers Home case, seeking to overturn the final ruling in their state compensation lawsuit.

The Brothers Home case refers to the forced confinement of individuals labeled as vagrants by police and other authorities in Brothers Home, a private social welfare institution, between 1960 and 1992. It is known that more than 650 people died as a result of forced labor, beatings, and other cruel treatment during this period.

Victim A was also taken to Brothers Home in January 1984 and died during the period of confinement. As a result, A's spouse and children filed for damages against the Republic of Korea and, in July last year, won the first trial awarding compensation for mental damages.

However, the family appealed, seeking additional compensation for economic damages, including A’s lost future earnings (income lost due to death) and funeral expenses. The appellate court, however, did not recognize the claims for economic damages, stating that it could not be concluded that A's death was directly caused by cruel or improper treatment during confinement.

The Supreme Court likewise dismissed the family's subsequent appeal in June by summary denial, without a full hearing.

In response, the bereaved family filed a constitutional petition, claiming that their rights to human dignity and value, due process, the right to a trial, and the right to seek state compensation were infringed.

According to the Constitutional Court, the key issues in this case include whether the court’s approach to causality in state compensation cases undermines the effective protection of the right to claim state compensation (essentially making the right nominal rather than substantive) and whether it violates the “just compensation as prescribed by law” clause in Article 29, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court announced that it plans to review issues such as the structural disadvantages in proving causality in state compensation suits where the state illegally mobilizes private actors to infringe upon citizens’ lives and bodies.

The court also noted that another issue is whether the Supreme Court, by rejecting the appeal without a hearing despite questions about the constitutionality of the appellate court's ruling, bypassed due process and infringed upon the right to a fair trial.

In this case, given the petitioners’ lack of financial resources and the recognition of public interest, their application for a court-appointed counsel was accepted. This is the first trial cancellation case to proceed with court-appointed representation.

Additionally, on the same day, another constitutional petition was referred to the full bench. This case seeks to overturn a court decision that dismissed an appeal solely on the grounds that the statement of appeal was submitted late.

Meanwhile, since the new constitutional petition system's implementation on March 12, a total of 1,946 cases had been filed as of the previous day. As of this date, 17 cases have been referred to the full bench, while 1,652 have been dismissed.

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