All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2023Da285162 Decided January 22, 2026 【Damages (Government)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Whether a short limitation period under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act does not run if there are events that deny the objective and reasonable prospect of filing claims for compensation arising from torts (affirmative), and the standards for determining whether there are objective and reasonable prospect of asserting one’s rights Elements to be considered when determining the possibility of asserting one’s rights in cases concerning tort claims against the state [2] In a case where: (a) the Constitutional Court of Korea rendered a decision that the part of Article 16(2) of the former Act on Compensation to Persons Related to Gwangju Democratization Movement (amended by Act No. 5291, Jan. 13, 1997) regarding “mental suffering” among the “injuries suffered in relation to Gwangju Democratization Movement” is in violation of the Constitution on May 27, 2021; (b) Party A, etc., bereaved family members of the persons related to May 18 Democratization Movement, filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the state, arguing that they incurred mental suffering because of unlawful discharge of official duties by civil servants; and (c) whether an entitlement to mental distress damages that Party A, etc. possess as the family members of the persons related to May 18 Democratization Movement has extinguished by a three-year limitation period under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, the case holding that: (a) there was no objective and reasonable prospect that the family members of the related persons would exercise their independent claims for mental distress damages, i.e., solatium claims, on the date on which a decision on the payment of compensation was made, even though they had become aware of the injury and the wrongdoer upon the decision on the payment of compensation, etc. made by the Commission for Damages to Persons Related to the Gwangju Democratization Movement; (b) there were impediments for Party A, etc. to asserting their own independent solatium claims until the Constitutional Court rendered an unconstitutionality decision; and (c) thus, given that Party A, etc. filed a claim before a three-year limitation period expired from the date of the unconstitutionality decision, the limitation period for Party A, etc.’s solatium claims inherent to the family members has not run out | |
