민주화운동 관련자 명예회복 및 보상 등에 관한 법률 제18조 제2항에서 정한 재판상 화해간주의 효력이 미치는 범위 - 대법원 2015. 1. 22. 선고, 2012다204365 전원합의체 판결 -

Regarding controversies over construing 18 (1) of Act on the Honor Restoration of and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movements, the Supreme Court of Korea ruled on the case 2012Da45603 (decided on March 13, 2014) and made clear with saying, “when the applicant approves the determination of payment of compensation, etc. pursuant to this Act, a ruling of consent pursuant to the provisions of Civil Procedure Act is deemed issued concerning damage suffered in relation to democratization movements.” The Court decision set a precedent for the lower courts which make a decision on the issue. However, what we should considers at this point is about those democratization movement-related persons who were found guilty based on false confession and incriminating statements that they were forced to make under torturing during investigation, then much later, their cases were reheard and they were acquitted. Some raise question over the decision and they argue when those victims approved the determination of payment of compensation by the Deliberation Committee for the Restoration of Honor and Compensation to Democratization Movement-Related Persons whether their consent is interpreted as the ruling of the consent. Over the issue, the majority opinion said that the ruling of consent shall be applied to all damages caused by unjustified imprisonment pursuant to the provision concerned while the dissenting opinion argued that the ruling of consent shall not be applied to noneconomic damages. It added that if there were significant changes in circumstances which served as grounds for determining the rule of consent was deemed issued, the scope of the effect of the ruling shall be limited. The dissenting opinion is also logical considering, first, the criminal procedures systems and its implications have been undergone significant changes compared to the previous ones when they were arrested, incarcerated and served their terms after the court decision and second, purpose of legislation of Act on the Honor Restoration of and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movements or Act on the Reexamination of Past History for Truth and Reconciliation. In fact, main purpose of legislating Act on the Honor Restoration of and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movements was to deal with legal issues over compensations for those related to democratization movement in an effective way for them. For this reason, the majority opinion is also bought. To appropriately deal with issues over compensation and construing the legal provision, further discussion is required on issues, for example, legal implications of the recovery of recovery of compensation money by those concerned on the right to claim for damages of the survived, extinctive prescription of exercising the claim right, or constitutionality of 18 (2) of the Act and etc.