The Constitutional Court has issued its first ruling that the current law allowing posthumously adopted heirs of Jeju 4·3 victims to receive criminal compensation does not violate the Constitution. Posthumous adoption is a system in which an heir is adopted to continue the family line when a deceased head of household had no direct descendants. The court found it necessary to recognize the inheritance rights of posthumous adoptees who have long fulfilled memorial duties, considering that a significant number of victims died without direct descendants.
According to legal circles on Wednesday, the Constitutional Court recently issued a unanimous ruling of constitutionality on Article 18-2, Paragraph 2 of the Special Act on Discovering the Truth of the Jeju 4·3 Incident and the Restoration of Honor of Victims (the Jeju 4·3 Act).
The petitioner, identified as A, is the daughter of victim B, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for carrying out insurrection in connection with the Jeju 4·3 incident and died around 1950 while serving his sentence. After B's death, A's mother registered C as a posthumous adoptee in 1987 to continue the headship of household. When B was posthumously acquitted in a retrial in 2021, A and C jointly filed for criminal compensation.
However, A filed a constitutional petition arguing that her property rights as a biological child were infringed when she and posthumous adoptee C jointly inherited the right to claim criminal compensation under the Jeju 4·3 Act. Article 18-2, Paragraph 2 of the Jeju 4·3 Act stipulates that the right to receive criminal compensation belongs to the heirs under the Civil Act at the time of the compensation claim. Although the posthumous adoption system was abolished on January 1, 1991, those who had been legally designated as posthumous adoptees before that date retain their status as adopted children under the Civil Act.
The Constitutional Court found that there is no issue with the current law allowing posthumous adoptees to claim criminal compensation, considering the legislative purpose of the right to criminal compensation, the role of posthumous adoptees, and the customs of Jeju Island. The court ruled that the law does not violate the Constitution because it does not infringe on the property rights of biological children.
The court cited the fact that a significant number of Jeju 4·3 victims had no direct descendants as grounds for its ruling. "Among Jeju 4·3 victims, 79.1% were male, and 41% were in their 20s when they died," the court said. "As the number of victims without direct descendants grew, a custom developed in Jeju of sending a victim's nephew — a third or fifth-degree relative — as a posthumous adoptee to perform ancestral rites and maintain the grave."
"This custom served as a major way for Jeju residents' kinship communities to remember and mourn the victims," the court said. "Posthumous adoptees have long regarded themselves as direct descendants of the victims and have shared emotions with them." The court concluded, "There is a need to recognize the right to inherit criminal compensation claims for posthumous adoptees who have honored the victims posthumously by commemorating their contributions and sacrifices through long periods of performing ancestral rites and maintaining graves."
"This ruling marks the first time the Constitutional Court has decided on the provision of the Special Act on Discovering the Truth of the Jeju 4·3 Incident and the Restoration of Honor of Victims, which stipulates that the right to receive criminal compensation belongs to the heirs — including posthumous adoptees — at the time of the compensation claim," the court said.
