The scope of the claim for criminal compensation is determined according to the same Act as a public right that forms a specific content in accordance with the Criminal Compensation Act. The claimant’s claim for criminal compensation becomes final and conclusive upon the claimant’s exercise of the claim for criminal compensation, namely, the right to claim the payment of criminal compensation finalized against the State (see Articles 21 and 23 of the Criminal Compensation Act). Article 23 of the Criminal Compensation Act explicitly distinguish between the claim for criminal compensation and the claim for compensation arising from the time when a court’s decision on compensation based on such claim becomes final and conclusive. Such claim for criminal compensation is the right to demand the payment of the amount fixed and conclusive to the State according to the contents of the final and conclusive decision for compensation. Moreover, the scope of compensation is unlikely to change. Therefore, the claim for criminal compensation is not different in nature from the general claim against the State.

In a case where the State delays the payment of the criminal compensation finalized, there is no explicit provision regarding the payment of damages for delay. However, as seen above, the right to claim the payment of criminal compensation is similar to the general monetary claim against the State. As such, the provisions on delay of the Civil Act and the special provisions on the non-performance of monetary obligations under Article 397 of the Civil Act should be applied as they are. Moreover, since the right to claim the payment of criminal compensation does not stipulate the deadline for performance in the Criminal Compensation Act or the decision on compensation, it is reasonable to view that the State should pay damages for delay calculated at the statutory rate from the

If the State delays a claimant’s obligation to pay criminal compensation according to a final and conclusive compensation decision, the State cannot justify the delay on the ground that the budget on criminal compensation is insufficient. This is the same as it is impossible to justify the delay of the monetary obligation due to the lack of financial resources of the monetary claimant.

1. Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides, “When a person detained as a criminal suspect or a criminal defendant has received a disposition of non-prosecution or a judgment of not guilty as prescribed by Act, he/she may claim reasonable compensation from the State under the conditions as prescribed by Act.” Accordingly, the Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honor Act (hereinafter “Criminal Compensation Act”) provides for the methods, procedures, etc. for criminal compensation and restoration of his/her reputation in order to contribute to the legitimate compensation and actual restoration of reputation to a person who has been rendered a judgment of not guilty in criminal

Article 2(1) of the Criminal Compensation Act provides, “When a defendant in a case finalized after having received a verdict of not guilty in the general procedure, retrial or extraordinary appeal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act has been detained pending trial, he/she may claim compensation for detention against the State in accordance with this Act.” As to the specific procedure of criminal compensation, Article 7 of the Criminal Compensation Act provides, “The claim for compensation shall be filed with the court which has rendered a judgment of not guilty,” and Article 17(1) provides, “Article 21(1) provides, “Where a claim for compensation is reasonable, the court which has rendered a judgment of not guilty shall make a decision of compensation” and “Article 21(1) provides, “Any person who intends to make a claim for compensation shall submit a written claim for compensation to the public prosecutor’s office corresponding to the court which has made the decision of compensation.” Article 21(2) provides, “The written claim

In light of the above provisions of the Constitution and the Criminal Compensation Act, a claimant for criminal compensation may claim compensation upon receiving a written claim for compensation from the court which rendered a judgment of not guilty according to the procedure stipulated in the Criminal Compensation Act and submitting the written claim for compensation to the prosecutor's office corresponding to the court. In such cases, if the State delays the payment of compensation to the claimant, it shall be deemed that the claimant has defaulted his/her monetary obligation, and the State shall pay compensation for delay in addition to the compensation pursuant to Article 397 of the Civil Act from the

A claim for criminal compensation is a public law right that forms a specific content under the Criminal Compensation Act, and the scope of compensation is determined in accordance with the same Act. When a claimant becomes final and conclusive by exercising a claim for criminal compensation, the right to claim the payment of criminal compensation finalized against the State, i.e., the right to claim the payment of criminal compensation (see Articles 21 and 23 of the Criminal Compensation Act). Article 23 of the Criminal Compensation Act explicitly distinguish the claim for criminal compensation from the right to claim the payment of compensation when a final and conclusive decision by the court on the basis of such claim for compensation becomes final and conclusive. Such claim for criminal compensation is a right to demand the payment of the final and conclusive amount to the State according to the contents of the final and conclusive decision for compensation. In addition, the scope of compensation is not likely to change. Therefore, the claim for criminal compensation is not different in its nature from the general monetary claim against the State.

In a case where the State delays the payment of the criminal compensation finalized, there is no express provision as to whether to pay damages for delay in addition to damages for delay. However, as seen above, the claim for payment of criminal compensation is similar to the general monetary claim against the State. As such, the provisions on delay of the Civil Act and the special provisions on non-performance of monetary obligations under Article 397 of the Civil Act should be applied as it is. In addition, since the claim for payment of criminal compensation does not specify the deadline for payment in the Criminal Compensation Act or the decision on compensation, it is reasonable to view that the State should pay damages for delay calculated at the statutory rate

If the State delays a claimant’s obligation to pay criminal compensation according to the final and conclusive decision of compensation, the State cannot justify the delay on the ground that the budget on criminal compensation is insufficient. This is the same as it is impossible to justify the delay in the performance of a monetary obligation, as the pecuniary claimant lacks financial resources.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiffs from the day following the claim for payment of each of the above compensation to the day of full payment by delaying the Defendant’s obligation to pay each of the above compensation. In light of the above legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legal nature of

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)