"Martial Law Caused Fear, Anxiety, and Shame to the People"... Why Yoon Should Compensate

[Financial News] The reason the court ruled that former President Yoon Suk-yeol should compensate citizens who suffered mental damage due to the December 3 martial law incident is that it viewed the martial law declaration as a clear violation of the constitution and the law. As this is the first decision by the court, excluding the Constitutional Court, it is noteworthy whether it will affect future trials. There is also a possibility of similar lawsuits following in the future.
■Does Not Meet National Emergency Requirements
On the 25th, in the civil compensation lawsuit filed by 104 citizens against former President Yoon demanding 100,000 won per person, the Seoul Central District Court's sole civil judge Lee Seong-bok ruled that both the substantive and procedural unconstitutionality and illegality of the December 3 martial law were recognized.
The Constitution and the Martial Law Act stipulate 'wartime, incidents, or a national emergency equivalent to these' as conditions for declaring martial law. In other words, there must be a state of engagement with the enemy or a social disturbance to the extent that administrative and judicial functions cannot be performed. However, the court judged that the situation at the time did not meet these requirements.
Judge Lee explained, "There is no evidence that a national emergency existed at the time martial law was declared, and there was no state of engagement with the enemy, nor was society so disturbed that the military needed to be mobilized to maintain public order, making it extremely difficult to perform administrative and judicial functions."
He added, "At this time, the plaintiffs and the people of the Republic of Korea were living their daily lives as usual, and there was no national emergency, nor even any signs of it."
■Violation of National Assembly Notification Duty
Judge Lee also pointed out procedural issues. The obligation under the Martial Law Act to 'notify the National Assembly without delay' was not observed. The court explained, "The defendant did not notify the National Assembly at all after declaring martial law, and there is insufficient evidence that the Cabinet meeting or related ministers followed such procedures."
The court particularly viewed the illegality of the martial law declaration as significantly serious. The court noted "the degree of illegality of the acts, the regulatory nature of the martial law declaration targeting the entire nation of the Republic of Korea, the clear undemocratic and illegal nature of the subsequent actions, and the defendant's proactiveness shown in the process."
It continued, "In light of the National Assembly's resolution to lift martial law and the defendant's passivity regarding its lifting, and the Constitutional Court's grounds for impeachment, the defendant's martial law declaration and subsequent actions constitute intentional illegal acts under Article 750 of the Civil Code, causing mental suffering to the plaintiffs."
This aligns with the precedent set by the Supreme Court's full bench in August 2022, which recognized state responsibility for victims arrested and detained for violating Emergency Measure No. 9 during the Park Chung-hee government. The principle is that if state actions such as emergency measures or martial law declarations are evaluated as illegal acts by public officials, the state is liable for damages suffered by individuals as a result.
■Violation of Presidential Duty to Ensure 'Right to Life'
Finally, there was also criticism that former President Yoon violated the duties of the presidency. The court criticized, "The defendant paralyzed the functions of state institutions, including the National Assembly, the representative body of the people, through unconstitutional and illegal martial law and a series of measures resulting from it, violating the president's heavy duty to ensure the right to life, freedom, and human dignity of the people."
It added, "It is clear from experience that the plaintiffs, the people of the Republic of Korea who witnessed the martial law declaration and measures by the defendant, the president, suffered mental pain or damage expressed as fear, anxiety, discomfort, self-esteem, and shame at the time," acknowledging former President Yoon's obligation to pay damages and judging that 100,000 won is a sufficient amount.
This lawsuit was filed on December 10 last year by the 'Preparatory Group for the Compensation Lawsuit for Yoon Suk-yeol's Acts of Treason.' The main claim is that the unconstitutional martial law declaration caused serious mental harm to the people.
Meanwhile, this is not the end of civil lawsuits against former President Yoon. In May, four organizations, including the People's Livelihood Economy Research Institute, filed a compensation lawsuit against former President Yoon and former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, claiming that small and medium-sized business owners suffered damages due to the martial law incident. It is noteworthy whether this ruling will affect other trials.  

scottchoi15@fnnews.com Choi Eun-sol Reporter