South Korea's Supreme Court has ruled that families who lost state compensation suits because the statute of limitations had expired may file the same claim again, provided they obtained a truth-finding decision from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission before the revised Past History Settlement Act took effect. The court set out for the first time the legal principle that the provision also applies to cases already pending when the law took effect.
The court's Third Division, with Justice Oh Seok-jun as the presiding judge, on the 23rd overturned a lower court ruling that had dismissed a damages claim filed against the state by the bereaved family of a person identified as A, and sent the case back to the Daegu District Court.
A was shot dead without any trial in 1949, shortly before the Korean War, as part of a police campaign to root out leftist forces. A's family filed a damages suit against the state around 2012 but lost, and the ruling became final. The court at the time acknowledged that the state was obliged to pay compensation for the unlawful act, but found that the statute of limitations on the damages claim had run out. Under the National Finance Act, the limitation period for damages claims against the state is in principle five years from the date of the unlawful act.
In August 2023, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued a truth-finding decision stating that it was unlawful for military and police forces in Yeongdeok, North Gyeongsang Province, to have killed 20 civilians including A without due process on suspicion of leftist activity or of cooperating with communist guerrillas. Based on that decision, A's family filed a second damages suit against the state.
At issue was whether the res judicata effect of the earlier final ruling extended to the new case. Res judicata is the procedural effect that bars parties from relitigating the issues and substance of a ruling that has already become final.
The first-instance court, in a ruling handed down in April 2024, and the appellate court, in May last year, both ruled against A's family on the grounds that the earlier ruling carried res judicata effect.
But in February this year, while the case was under review at the Supreme Court, the Past History Settlement Act was fully revised and took effect. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling on the basis of that law and sided with the family.
The revision added a special provision under which cases that have received a truth-finding decision are not subject to the long-term statute of limitations, and under which people who obtained a truth-finding decision before the law took effect, or who lost a suit because the limitation period had expired, may exercise their right to claim damages within three years of the law's effective date.
The Supreme Court said the purpose of the revised law is that, on a foundation of reflection over the state's failure to fully compensate the victims of past anti-democratic and anti-human rights acts, it excludes the long-term limitation period or has the state waive the benefit of the limitation period itself, so that the res judicata effect of a final ruling dismissing a claim on limitation grounds does not extend to a new damages suit brought by a victim.
The court further held that if a truth-finding decision was made before the revised law took effect, the victim may claim damages again within three years of the law's effective date regardless of the earlier suit, even if a ruling dismissing the claim on limitation grounds had become final. It added that the same applies to cases in which a damages suit had already been filed before the revised law took effect and was still pending when it came into force.
The Supreme Court said the plaintiffs may claim damages again under the revised law, and that the lower court ruling, which found that the earlier final ruling carried res judicata effect, can therefore no longer stand.
