The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed with the Compensation Deliberation Committee for Persons Related to the May 18 Democratization Movement (hereinafter “Compensation Deliberation Committee”) an application for the payment of compensation as prescribed in Article 8 of the Act on the Compensation, etc. for Persons Related to the May 18 Democratization Movement (amended by Act No. 12910, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Revised Compensation Deliberation Committee”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff was bound to the Gwangju Police Station on May 18, 1981 and was subject to detention and assault for about four weeks during the May 18, 1981.”

On June 27, 2016, the subcommittee on the examination of whether to relate to the May 18 Democratization Movement (hereinafter “subcommittee”) rendered a decision to reject the Plaintiff’s application for payment of compensation on the ground that “it is difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize that he/she was detained or injured in relation to the May 18 Democratization Movement.” Accordingly, the Compensation Deliberation Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for payment of compensation on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for payment was insufficient to be related to the May 18 Democratization Movement.”

B. On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the Compensation Deliberation Committee on April 6, 2017. However, the subcommittee, on December 7, 2017, rendered a review and decision on the Plaintiff’s failure to accept the Plaintiff’s “competence and confinement” and “competence.” Accordingly, the Compensation Deliberation Committee rendered a review and decision on May 29, 2018 on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s evidentiary materials evidencing the details of the Plaintiff’s application do not lack objectivity, and the fact of damage goes beyond the conceptual scope of the 5/18 Democratization Movement, and is not recognized as having no direct relevance.”