All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 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 reconciliation under the Civil Procedure Act regarding the damage incurred in relation to democratization movements.”

According to Article 18(2) of the former Democratization Compensation Act, if an applicant consents to a decision on the payment of compensation, etc. of the Commission, the same effect as a judicial compromise under the Civil Procedure Act takes place with respect to all damages arising in relation to democratization movements for which he/she received compensation, etc.

On August 30, 2018, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the part concerning mental damage caused by illegal acts is in violation of the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2014HunBa180, Aug. 30, 2018) among "damage incurred in relation to democratization movements" under Article 18 (2) of the former Democratization Compensation Act.

The decision is binding on the court as a partial decision of unconstitutionality which results in the same result as the abolition of part of Article 18(2) of the former Democratization Compensation Act by declaring that the part of the "damage caused by a tort," which is a divisible part of the "damage caused in relation to a democratization movement," as seen above, is unconstitutional.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Da249589 Decided October 29, 2020, etc.). The effect of the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutional is not only the case where the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication of unconstitutionality, but also the case where a request for adjudication of unconstitutionality is made to the Constitutional Court before the decision of unconstitutionality is made, or where a request for adjudication of unconstitutionality is made to the court. However, the relevant law did not apply for separate examination of unconstitutionality from the relevant case.