Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kwon Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Democratization Movement Honor Restoration and Compensation Deliberation Committee for Persons Related to Democratization Movement

April 26, 2012

1. On December 20, 2010, the part which the Defendant was convicted of violation of the National Security Act and the Labor Dispute Adjustment Act relating to the Incheon Deputy Workers' Association among the dispositions that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on December 20, 2010, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant's disposition not to recognize persons related to democratization movements and disposition not to recognize the differences related to democratization movements against the plaintiff on December 20, 2010 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1985, the Plaintiff joined the Incheon Factory and was convicted of infringement on the rights and interests of workers between the employer and labor union members on January 1, 1986. ② The Seoul High Court convicted the Defendant on the ground that he was convicted of the violation of the National Security Act and the Act on the Adjustment of Labor Disputes and was sentenced to suspension of qualifications for one year and six months at the Seoul District Court on September 27, 1989, and was sentenced to suspension of qualifications for one year and one year and one year of suspension of qualifications for the Defendant on February 5, 1990, and was sentenced to suspension of qualifications for the reason that he was found guilty of the violation of the National Security Act by the Seoul High Court on March 28, 198,

B. On December 28, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of compensation, etc. with the Defendant on December 28, 2001 under the Act, while the Plaintiff suffered from chronic liver infections and livers during the activities related to the aging democratization and social democratization from 1985 to 1989. The Defendant was treated as chronic livers before the Plaintiff was initially recovered. Since 10 years passed since 10 years passed, the Plaintiff’s development into livers was natural progress and it is difficult to recognize medical causal relationship with democratizations, aquatic life, etc. (hereinafter “instant application for compensation”). As such, the Plaintiff dismissed the said application on December 20, 2010 on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the occurrence of livers as natural progress.

C. On February 17, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed against each of the above dispositions and filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant. Of these, regarding the decision on non-recognition of persons related to democratization movements, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination only on the part of the labor movement related to the Human Society except for the activities related to pan-divists. On August 29, 2011, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as above.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (in the case of documentary evidence with several numbers, each number is included), Eul evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 6, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The illegality of the disposition not recognized as a person related to the democratization movement of this case

In light of the fact that the executives and members of the Labor-Management Association in the remaining ten persons other than the Plaintiff were both recognized as persons related to democratization movements by the Defendant, and even those who were sentenced to a heavier punishment than the Plaintiff as a result of the activities of the Labor-Management Association are recognized as persons related to democratization movements, it is unlawful as it deviates from the scope of discretionary authority to determine whether or not the persons related to democratization movements are recognized as persons related to democratization movements according to the tendency of the deliberation members belonging to the Defendant in the same case where many related persons were recognized as persons related to democratization movements. In addition, since the judgment of the Court rendered that the Human Labor-Management Association was a dual organization, it cannot be recognized as persons related to democratization movements, but this cannot be a justifiable ground for non-recognition, and the Human Labor-Management Association was not an anti-government organization created to promote North Korea as organizations to improve the rights and interests of workers, and to recover and expand the freedom and rights of the people, and even though the Plaintiff did not have engaged in the activities seeking to promote the unification of the Korea Labor-Management Association, it is unlawful

(2) The illegality of the rejection disposition of the instant application for compensation

The plaintiff, after the commencement of the labor movement in 1985, was detained by the Human Labor Association and received medication on June 1989. Thus, even if there was a deficit received treatment prior to being identified as a person related to the democratization movement in 1985-1986, as long as it was recognized as a person related to the democratization movement in relation to the activities of the non-party 1 corporation in 1986, the defendant was found to have committed a dismissal disposition by mistake as to the causal relation after the fact-finding. The plaintiff was found to have caused hepatitis B around 1985 and had no opportunity for initial treatment while driving in the democratization movement in 1987, without having been given the opportunity for initial treatment. The defendant's above dismissal disposition was unlawful even if there was a proximate causal relation between the democratization movement and the non-party 1 corporation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The plaintiff was indicted for violating the National Security Act and the Labor Dispute Mediation Act for the following reasons in relation to the activities of the Labor Union, and was sentenced to one year imprisonment at the Seoul High Court on February 5, 1990, and one year of suspension of qualification, and the judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “the judgment of conviction in this case”) (the detention on June 7, 1989, release on June 10, 199).

On March 5, 1988, the Plaintiff joined a labor-related meeting comprised of the president, non-party 2, vice-president, and non-party 3, etc. on March 5, 1988, and joined an anti-government organization for the purpose of benefiting North Korea, which is an anti-government organization. Thereafter, on July 7, 1988 through December 12 of the same year, the Plaintiff participated in the labor-related dispute action between the police officers of the Republic of Korea and the first police officers of the same year, including the anti-government, anti-government, anti-surcratization, anti-suratization, anti-surcratization, democratic revolution, unification, socialism, etc., and the Plaintiff participated in the labor-related dispute action between the police officers of the Republic of Korea and the members of the anti-government organization.

(2) On the other hand, Nonparty 2, who was indicted by the Plaintiff on the violation of the National Security Act and the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months at Seoul High Court on March 29, 1990, and the suspension of qualification for two years. On June 15, 2004, the Defendant decided Nonparty 2 as a person related to democratization movement in relation to the conviction against the above Nonparty 2. In addition, Nonparty 3, who was indicted by the Plaintiff as a violation of the National Security Act and was sentenced to one year and six months in Seoul High Court on November 23, 1989 and the suspension of qualification for two years in relation to the judgment against the above Nonparty 3 on August 8, 2005, was sentenced to a judgment of conviction against the said Nonparty 3 as a person related to democratization movement.

(3) After being detained in relation to the human labor association's activities, the Plaintiff complained of liver infection at the time of medical examination conducted by the prison on June 30, 1989, and was treated with liver infection as a result of blood examination conducted on July 3, 1989. After being investigated and prosecuted as a violation of the National Security Act in relation to the activities conducted by the senior secretary-general, the Plaintiff was detained in the Seoul detention center on September 13, 1994. Since 1987, the Plaintiff was confirmed to have been admitted to the treatment for liver infection and was isolated from the treatment for liver infection. After being transferred to the Ansan prison on March 10, 1995, the Plaintiff was charged with a simplified operation on May 11, 1995 and released from the prison on bail on May 11, 1995. After being indicted with the Secretariat on July 17, 1996, the Plaintiff was charged with the charge of committing a crime-related crime, and received a simplified operation on July 19, 197.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 9, Eul’s evidence 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether a disposition not recognized as a person related to the democratization movement of the instant case was unlawful

(A) In order to be recognized as a person related to democratization movements as prescribed by the Act, the term “a person who has been convicted of a democratization movement” as prescribed in Article 2 subparag. 2(d) of the Act means a person who has contributed to the establishment of democratic constitutional order and has contributed to the establishment of democratic constitutional order by resisting the rule of state power and restoring and expanding the freedom and rights of the people, and thereby has caused death or missing, injury, conviction, dismissal, or school affairs disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2028, May 11, 2007). The term “a person who has been convicted of a democratization movement” as prescribed in Article 2 subparag. 2(d) of the Act means a person who has committed an active act in the course of being found guilty of a person who has contributed to the establishment of democratic constitutional order and contributed to the recovery and extension of the freedom and rights of the people, and has contributed to the establishment of a political, social and cultural order and has an objective motive to actively and objectively participate in such activities in the process of being found guilty by virtue of such active and objective act.

(B) He returned to the instant case, and the Plaintiff expressed the orientation that does not fit the value of free democracy by putting in place the “comprehionization, anti-frequency show demodization, the democratization movement of the nation, the revolution of the anti-state democracy, and the practice of the Uniform Socialist Revolution,” in relation to the human society’s activities. It has repeatedly shown that he/she was engaged in the activities of the Human Society as the Deputy Secretary-General of the Republic of Korea and the Secretary-General of the Republic of Korea, who is a dual organization, and repeatedly expressed the behavior that denies the unity of free democracy and the Republic of Korea. However, if he/she appears to be limited to the Plaintiff’s membership in the Human Rights Association, the production and possession of pro-enemy contents, and the involvement of labor movement, which is a fact related to the non-recognition of the persons related to the instant democratization movement of this case, it is difficult to readily conclude this as an act that denies the value of free democracy and benefits North Korea, but rather, it is not deemed to be a democratization movement recognized by the law.

(C) Furthermore, the Act shall be comprised of nine members including a chairperson. The President shall appoint three members from among those with abundant knowledge and experience; three members shall be recommended by the Speaker of the National Assembly; three members shall be recommended by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Article 5); and the concept of democratization movements prescribed by the Act shall be abstract and comprehensive; and even if there is a wide range of judgment based on each member’s social, political, and historical conviction in deliberating and determining persons related to democratization movements, even though there is no room for the defendant to decide on the recognition of persons related to democratization movements in accordance with such circumstance, it shall not be deemed that the disposition on recognition of persons related to democratization movements is an act of discretion; even if considering the above circumstances, the defendant dismissed only the application for restoration of the plaintiff’s reputation against prior decisions related to the Human Society against the principle of equality.

(D) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s non-recognition of a person related to the democratization movement of this case is deemed unlawful since it constitutes a person found guilty on the ground of a democratization movement.

(2) Whether the dismissal disposition of the instant application for compensation was unlawful

(A) In order to recognize the instant application for compensation, it should be clearly determined that the Plaintiff’s livering that the livering that occurred due to the aggravation of infection and liver infection was related to the Plaintiff’s democratization movement. In light of the fact of recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, as to whether there was a proximate causal relation with the democratization movement before the initial life of the Plaintiff, which had been suffering from livering from the 1987, prior to the initial life of his livering life, the fact of recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Even if the Plaintiff aggravated symptoms due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive proper treatment during 3 times of livering life after the 1987 when livering infection occurred, the period during which the Plaintiff had been living in a veterinary life in relation to the Mano-Mao’s activities (from June 7, 1989 to June 10, 199) does not seem to have any other severe symptoms except infection, and even thereafter, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s livering or liver democratization.

(B) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the rejection disposition of the instant claim for compensation is unlawful is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of non-recognition of a person related to the democratization movement of this case is justified, and the remaining part is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 7]

Judges Ansan-gu (Presiding Judge) Regular Award