The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to binding force of the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality

A. Article 18(2) of the former Act on the Restoration of Honor of and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movements (amended by Act No. 13289, May 18, 2015; hereinafter “former Democratization Compensation Act”) provides that “If an applicant has consented to the determination of payment of compensation, etc. under this Act, the determination of payment of compensation, etc. under this Act shall be deemed to have been made by judicial compromise under the Civil Procedure Act regarding the damage incurred in relation to democratization movements.”

On August 30, 2018, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the part concerning mental damage caused by a tort, among "damage caused in relation to a democratization movement" under Article 18 (2) of the former Act on the Compensation for Democratization Movement, is in violation of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Decision 2014HunBa180, Aug. 30, 2018; hereinafter "decision on partial unconstitutionality of this case").

As above, the decision of partial unconstitutionality of the instant case has become binding by declaring that the part of the “damage caused by a tort,” which is a part of the “damage caused by a democratization movement,” which is a part of the “damage caused by a tort,” thereby losing its effect and causing the same result as the abolition of a part of Article 18(2)

(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Da249589 Decided October 29, 2020). Therefore, even if compensation, etc. is paid pursuant to the former Democratization Compensation Act, there was no ground to view that a judicial compromise was reached with respect to mental damage caused by a tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Da2049 Decided November 26, 2020). B.

Since the court below's decision on partial unconstitutionality regarding the lawsuit of this case claiming consolation money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff in relation to democratization movements has not been effective, the court below's decision on mental damage suffered by the plaintiff in relation to democratization movements has the effect of judicial compromise under Article 18 (2) of the former Act on the Compensation for