Whether the overall democratization movement can be evaluated as a member of an organization where the activities of any organization whose ideology or purpose pursuing is detrimental to the fundamental order of free democracy and destroying and changing the internal system of the Republic of Korea have some appearance to resist the authoritative rule.

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Restoration of, Compensation to, etc. to Persons Related to Democratization Movements defines the term " Democratization Movement" as "activities that contribute to the realization of the ideology and value of the Constitution and the establishment of democratic constitutional order and to the recovery and extension of the freedom and rights of the people by resisting the authoritative rule that disturbs the fundamental order of free democracy and infringes on fundamental rights of people guaranteed by the Constitution on or after March 24, 1964." Thus, if the ideology or purpose pursued by any organization is to destroy and alter the internal system of the Republic of Korea while harming the fundamental order of free democracy, it does not constitute democratization movement because it conflicts or conflicts with the realization of the ideology and value of the Constitution, the establishment of democratic constitutional order, and the recovery and extension of the freedom and rights of the people, and even if the activities of such organization have some appearance resisting the authoritative rule, if the activities of such organization are merely temporary and means shown in the process of achieving their own purpose, it should not be evaluated as a whole as a democratization movement as a member of such organization for this reason.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Restoration of Honor and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movement, Etc.

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Park Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu16932 decided November 2, 2012

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Restoration of, and Compensation to, Persons Related to Democratization Movement (hereinafter “Act”) defines “divatization movement” as “activities that contribute to the realization of the ideology and value pursued by the Constitution and to the establishment of democratic constitutional order and to the restoration and extension of the freedom and rights of the people by resisting authoritative rule that disturbs the fundamental liberal democratic order and infringes on fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution on or after March 24, 1964.” Thus, if the ideology or purpose pursued by an organization is to harm the fundamental democratic order and destroy and change the internal system of the Republic of Korea, it cannot be deemed as a democratization movement, as it conflicts or conflicts with the realization of the ideology and value of the Constitution, the establishment of democratic constitutional order, and the restoration and extension of the freedom and rights of the people, and if the activities of such organization are only temporary and means expressed in the process of achieving their objectives even if they have some appearance to resist the authoritative rule, the overall evaluation of their activities as a member of the organization should not be readily made.

2. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s joining the Incheon Deputy Workers’ Association (hereinafter “Korea Workers’ Association”), production and possession of pro-enemy materials, involvement in labor movements, etc., which is a fact subject to a disposition of non-recognition of persons related to the democratization movement of this case constitutes an act to promote the rights and interests of workers and human rights under the authoritative regime, which is an act to promote the rights and interests of workers under the authoritative regime, and that the Defendant’s dismissal of only an application for restoration of the honor of the U.S.

3. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the record, ① the Plaintiff was indicted for violating the National Security Act, such as participating in the formation of the Human Rights Association and the Act on the Mediation of Labor Disputes, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualifications at the Seoul High Court on February 5, 1990. The ideology and purpose of the Human Rights Council revealed in the facts constituting the crime are to deny the fundamental order of free democracy, such as “an anti-mination, anti-pactatization, the democratic revolution against the Republic of Korea, the practice of the unification revolution, etc.,” and to promote or instigate North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and to enhance basic labor rights. ② Even if the Human Rights Council’s activities such as improvement of workers status, are hard to say that it was a means to achieve the fundamental order of democracy or to build social order of the Republic of Korea, which is the original ideology pursued by the Human Rights Council, and the fundamental order of the Republic of Korea, which is an anti-national organization’s ideology or fundamental order.

On the other hand, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff constituted a person related to democratization movements on the ground that the Plaintiff was found guilty of his/her activities in relation to his/her labor union was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “divatization movements” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act.

4. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)