The Supreme Court has ruled that the statute of limitations had not expired on a 2021 lawsuit filed by families of victims of the May 18 Democratization Movement seeking emotional damages from the government. The court found that until the Constitutional Court's 2021 ruling on the unconstitutionality of related legal provisions, the victims' families faced practical obstacles preventing them from exercising their rights.
According to legal sources Tuesday, the Supreme Court's Second Division (presiding Justice Eom Sang-pil) recently overturned a lower court ruling that had partially favored 23 family members of May 18 Democratization Movement victims in their damages suit against the government, sending the case back to the Gwangju High Court for reconsideration.
The plaintiffs are family members of victims who were killed or injured by martial law troops during the May 18 Democratization Movement through assault, gunfire and other means. They received compensation in 1990-1991 under the former Gwangju Democratization Movement Compensation Act. After the Constitutional Court ruled in May 2021 that provisions of the former act restricting claims for emotional damages were unconstitutional, the families filed suit against the government in November of that year. The suit sought compensation not only for the victims themselves but also for the emotional suffering endured by their families.
The key issue was whether the statute of limitations had expired on the families' claims for consolation money. Under the Civil Act, the right to claim damages from tortious acts expires three years after the victim becomes aware of the damage if not exercised within that period.
The first-instance court found that emotional damage claims were possible following the Constitutional Court's unconstitutionality ruling, recognizing claims for consolation money from both victims and their families.
In contrast, the appellate court rejected claims by some plaintiffs, including siblings, finding that the statute of limitations on family members' claims had already expired, having begun running in the 1990s when compensation payments were determined.
The appellate court stated that "family members were able to realistically and concretely recognize the tortious acts in this case around 1990-1991, yet they filed suit in November 2021, well beyond three years from the date the compensation payments were determined."
The first-instance court accepted some bereaved family members' claims for consolation money, finding that state compensation claims for emotional damages were possible following the Constitutional Court's unconstitutionality ruling. The amount accepted totaled 1.48 billion won, approximately 38% of the total claim of 3.85 billion won.
The appellate court expanded the scope of compensation for some plaintiffs but did not recognize independent consolation money claims by some family members, including siblings. The appellate court determined that since "bereaved families" under the former Gwangju Democratization Movement Compensation Act refers to property heirs of the persons concerned, these heirs faced legal obstacles preventing them from exercising their right to claim consolation money until the Constitutional Court's unconstitutionality ruling.
However, the appellate court found that family members such as siblings, who were not property heirs of the persons concerned, were not eligible recipients of compensation under the act, and therefore could not be considered to have faced the same obstacle in exercising their independent right to claim consolation money. Accordingly, the court explained that the three-year short-term statute of limitations had begun running for these claims around the time of the compensation payment decisions and had already expired.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower court's ruling. It overturned the portion of the ruling concerning families' independent claims for consolation money and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court. All other appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court determined that even if family members of those involved in the May 18 incident could have recognized the state's tortious acts and damages at the time the compensation payments were decided, they faced obstacles preventing them from exercising their independent right to claim consolation money as family members until the Constitutional Court's unconstitutionality ruling. The Supreme Court explained that "until May 27, 2021, the date of the unconstitutionality ruling, the plaintiffs could not exercise their independent right to claim consolation money as family members of the persons concerned," adding that "since the lawsuit was filed before three years had passed from that date, the statute of limitations has not expired."
This ruling follows the purport of the Supreme Court's en banc decision on emotional damages related to the May 18 movement, handed down on January 22.
