In cases where an applicant was convicted of a confession made by an adviser, etc. after illegal arrest and detention in relation to the Gwangju Democratization Movement, and consented to a decision on the payment of compensation, etc. by the Deliberative Committee on Compensation for Persons Related to the Gwangju Democratization Movement, whether the same effect as a judicial compromise takes effect pursuant to Article 16(2) of the former Act on the Compensation, etc. for Persons Related to the Gwangju Democratization Movement (affirmative), and where a final judgment of innocence has become final and conclusive in the final review procedure, whether the partial damage may be excluded to the extent that

Articles 4(1), 7, 8(1), 12(1), and 16(2) of the former Act on the Compensation, etc. for Persons Related to Gwangju Democratization (Amended by Act No. 7215, Mar. 27, 2004); Articles 14 and 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation, etc. for Persons Related to Gwangju Democratization Movements (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17952, Apr. 4, 2003)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da45603 Decided March 13, 2014 (Gong2014Sang, 834), Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da204365 Decided January 22, 2015 (Gong2015Sang, 228)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Don Law, Attorneys Yellow-san et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 4 and two others (Law Firm Don Law, Attorneys Yellow-san et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jin-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na30948 decided October 18, 2012

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The former Act on the Compensation, etc. for Persons Related to Gwangju Democratization (amended by Act No. 7215, Mar. 27, 2004; hereinafter “former Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act”) provides that “The State shall restore honor to persons killed or missing, or wounded in relation to Gwangju Democratization Movement (hereinafter “related persons”) and their bereaved family members and shall accordingly compensate them so as to promote their livelihood stability and welfare and contribute to national unity and democratic development.” Article 4(1) of the former Act provides that “In order to examine the facts about the relevant persons and their bereaved family members under this Act and to deliberate and decide on other compensation, the Compensation Deliberation Committee shall be established in Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Compensation Deliberation Committee”)” and Article 8(1) provides that “Where an applicant wishes to receive compensation, such as compensation benefits, etc. pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and the written consent of the Compensation Deliberation Committee shall be deemed to have agreed to receive compensation, etc. from the relevant persons or their bereaved family members, the applicant shall be deemed to have agreed to receive the payment of compensation.”

In addition, Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation, etc. for Persons Related to Gwangju Democratization Movement (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17952 of Apr. 4, 2003, hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act”) provides that “where an applicant notified of the determination of compensation intends to receive compensation, etc., he/she shall submit to the Compensation Deliberation Committee a written consent and a written application stating the following (attached Form 10), along with the authentic copy of the decision of compensation and a certificate of the applicant’s personal seal impression,” and subparagraph 3 of Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation, etc. for Persons Related to Gwangju Democratization Democratization Movement (attached Form 10) provides that “When the applicant receives the compensation, etc., he/she shall enter into a compromise contract with respect to the case, and shall not make any request again in any way with respect to

In addition to the legislative intent of the former Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act, the contents of the relevant provisions, the consent prepared and submitted by the applicant, and the contents of the written claim, the legislative purpose of Article 16(2) of the former Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act is the same effect as judicial reconciliation if the applicant consents to the decision on the payment of compensation, etc., and in particular, it is necessary to promptly terminate and implement the application through the procedures for the decision on the payment of compensation, etc. prior to the lawsuit by granting res judicata, such as compensation by the Compensation Deliberation Committee, and to ensure stability in the decision on the payment of compensation, etc., if the applicant consents to the decision on the payment of compensation, etc. of the Compensation Deliberation Committee, the applicant shall be deemed to have the same effect as the judicial compromise under the Civil Procedure Act as to all damages incurred in relation to Gwangju Democratization democratization, which he/she received, including consolation money, pursuant to Article 16(2) of the former Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act (see Supreme Court

Meanwhile, Article 7 of the former Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act provides that “The Compensation Deliberation Committee may grant subsidies to relevant persons or their bereaved family members to assist their livelihood.” Article 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act provides that “The criteria for payment of living allowances under Article 7 of the Act shall be determined by the Compensation Support Committee.” According to the relevant provisions, the former Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act does not distinguish the circumstances leading up to conviction in the payment of living allowances to persons who have been convicted of facts in relation to the Gwangju Democratization Movement for a certain period, and does not distinguish the circumstances leading up to conviction in relation to the payment of living allowances to the persons who have been found guilty on the grounds of the Gwangju Democratization Democratization Movement. Therefore, it is interpreted that the applicant’s act committed by an investigation agency, such as illegal arrest, detention, advisory or manipulation, etc., such act is subject to the payment of living allowances if he/she were found guilty on the ground of the foregoing 20th judgment in relation to the Gwangju Democratization Movement, and thus, the damages suffered by the applicant due to the final judgment of the Supreme Court.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the records reveals the following facts.

A. Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1, etc.”) who are parties to the so-called ○○○○○ case as indicated in the judgment of the court below were engaged in activities such as informing the truth of the Gwangju Democratization movement at the end of 1980. On July 1981, it was prosecuted after being illegally arrested and detained by investigators belonging to the Daejeon District Police Agency, and was indicted for cruel acts such as adviser, reply, intimidation, etc. (hereinafter “instant tort”), and subsequently convicted Plaintiff 1, etc. as a crime of the National Security Act, etc. around 1983.

B. At around 201, Plaintiff 1, etc. was determined as a related person under the former Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act, and received compensation, etc. from Plaintiff 1 to receive compensation, etc. for confinement compensation and living allowances, etc.; Plaintiff 1 received compensation, etc.; Plaintiff 2, 126,460,00 won; Plaintiff 3, 93,696,00 won; Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 84,676,850 won; Plaintiff 4; Plaintiff 84,676,850 won; Plaintiff 1’s bereaved family member; and Plaintiff 5 and Plaintiff 6 received compensation, etc. from Plaintiff 5 and Plaintiff 6, respectively; around that time, they submitted consent and written claim under the former Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act.

C. On the other hand, in around 2009 and around 2011, the evidence on the facts charged in the case of a request for a retrial against the plaintiff 1 et al. was sentenced to a judgment of innocence (including partial acquittal) on the grounds that the evidence on the facts charged was based on illegal arrest or a harsh act by an investigative agency, etc., and there was no admissibility or credibility, etc.,

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even though the judgment of innocence was finally revoked by reexamination and became final and conclusive, since all damages suffered by Plaintiff 1, etc. due to reinstatement of the instant tort occurred in relation to Gwangju Democratization Movement as prescribed by the former Gwangju Democratization Compensation Act, as long as Plaintiff 1, etc. consented to the decision of the Compensation Deliberation Committee on the payment of compensation, etc., it should also be deemed that the same effect as a judicial compromise pursuant to Article 16(2) of the former Gwangju Democratization Compensation Act has the same effect as that of the compensation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit of this case seeking compensation for damages equivalent to lost income due to the Plaintiff 1, etc.’s occupational loss due to illegal confinement due to the instant illegal confinement of Plaintiff 1, etc. by the instant illegal act constitutes damages arising from Gwangju Democratization Movement, and thus,

4. Accordingly, we examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal and the lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs 4, 5, and 6 ex officio.

A. The court below held that even if the compensation, etc. as prescribed by the former Gwangju Democratization Compensation Act was paid to Plaintiff 1, etc., the same effect as the judicial compromise did not extend to the lawsuit of this case seeking damages equivalent to the lost income due to the loss of occupation of Plaintiff 1, etc. due to illegal confinement by the tort of this case, the court below partly accepted the claim of Plaintiff 1, 2, and Plaintiff 3, and dismissed the claim of Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, and Plaintiff 6 on the premise that the action corresponding to the claim of Plaintiff 5, and Plaintiff 6 was legitimate, based on the premise that the action corresponding to the claim of Plaintiff 1 is legitimate.

B. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of validity of Article 16(2) of the former Gwangju Democraticization Compensation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

5. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 4, 5, and 6 and the remainder of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since this court is sufficient to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit in this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)