What happened

South Korea’s Supreme Court en banc held that bereaved families of 5·18 victims still have valid rights to claim consolation money (emotional distress damages) from the state.

The Court overturned an appellate ruling that said the families’ claims were time-barred, and sent the case back (remanded) to the Gwangju High Court.


Who brought the case

15 family members of people who were allegedly beaten by martial law troops or illegally detained and assaulted, leading to death.

(More relatives originally sued, but many withdrew their appeals, leaving 15 for the Supreme Court to decide.)


Core legal issue

When does the statute of limitations start for families’ own (independent) emotional-damages claims?

The state argued the clock should run from the early 1990s, when compensation was paid.

The families argued they could not realistically exercise the claim until after a key Constitutional Court decision in 2021.


Why 2021 matters

On May 27, 2021, the Constitutional Court found unconstitutional a provision of the old 5·18 compensation law that effectively blocked additional state-liability claims once compensation was accepted.

After that decision (and legal changes), families pursued separate “mental harm” claims as an exception.


What the appellate court said (and why it was reversed)

The 2nd instance court reasoned that the families’ emotional damages were not actually covered by the compensation statute in the first place, so there was no “legal obstacle” preventing them from suing earlier.

Therefore, it treated the claims as already expired under the Civil Act’s short limitation period.

The Supreme Court rejected this framing, emphasizing the real-world/legal uncertainty created by the compensation framework and how it affected the families’ ability to sue.


Supreme Court majority view (11 justices)

The limitation period does not run where there is a “legal obstacle” making rights not reasonably exercisable.

The key test: whether there was an objective, reasonable expectation that exercising the right was possible.

The Court considered it likely many families believed that accepting compensation in the 1990s meant they could not sue the state again, at least until the 2021 Constitutional Court ruling clarified things.


Additional reasoning the Court highlighted

The Court noted the state, as the wrongdoer, should not benefit from a system that made the legal landscape complex and unclear for victims.

It also referenced the broader purpose of state liability and victim protection, implying courts should be cautious about cutting off claims when the state contributed to the confusion.


Separate opinions

A concurring justice went further, suggesting the state’s statute-of-limitations defense could be viewed as abuse of rights / contrary to good faith in this context.

Dissent (Justice Noh Tae-ak): under current doctrine, the families’ claims should be treated as time-barred, and if relief is needed it should come through new or amended legislation, not judicial expansion.


Practical takeaway

This decision re-opens a path for certain 5·18 families to pursue individual emotional-distress damages against the state, even if compensation was accepted decades ago.

It also signals a broader principle: when a legal framework realistically blocks or discourages claims, limitation periods may pause until that barrier is removed.

Article: https://mobile.newsis.com/view/NISX20260122_0003486763