‘법원의 확정판결을 받은 사건’ 의 시적 범위 검토 - 진실화해를 위한 과거사정리 기본법 제2조 제2항 ‘제1항의 규정에 의한 진실규명 범위에 해당하는 법원의 확정판결 받은 사건’의 의미 -

Although the bereaved families of (non-applicant) victims had never applied for truth clarification to the First Commission, the commission exercised its authority to determine the truth ex officio. After the First Commission ended, these (non-applicant) bereaved families filed claims for state compensation, but their claims were dismissed by final judgment due to a lack of evidence. With the establishment of the Second Commission, the (non-applicant) bereaved families now seek to formally apply for truth clarification. However, the issue is whether they fall under the exclusion clause in Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Framework Act on Truth and Reconciliation, which states that cases that have received a final judgment by a court are excluded from truth clarification. The main text of Article 2, Paragraph 2 states: "Even if a case falls within the scope of truth clarification under Paragraph 1, cases that have received a final judgment by a court shall be excluded." The time periods defined in Paragraph 1 include: Subparagraph 3: "From August 15, 1945, to the period around the Korean War." Subparagraph 4: "From August 15, 1945, to the period of authoritarian rule." The original legislative intent of the Truth Clarification Initiative was to investigate serious human rights violations, including unlawful mass killings of civilians and abuses of state power, from the post-liberation period through the Korean War and up until the period of authoritarian rule. The initial proposal also included "judicially adjudicated cases" as part of the scope of truth clarification. During the legislative process, the debate over the exclusion of "final judgment cases" was centered on the issue of "past cases" and "cases unjustly ruled upon in the past," which were temporally limited. Based on this legislative intent, the "final judgment cases that are excluded even if they qualify for truth clarification" refer to: Cases where the court’s final ruling itself was based on false facts due to unlawful investigations or fabricated charges from: Subparagraph 3: "August 15, 1945, to the period around the Korean War." Subparagraph 4: "August 15, 1945, to the period of authoritarian rule." Therefore, if "final judgment cases" are interpreted broadly to include all judicial rulings, rather than being limited to those specified in Article 2, Paragraph 1 (time period for truth clarification), such an interpretation may violate the victims' right to truth and their right to claim state compensation.