Will 'Martial Law Compensation' Lawsuit Against Kim Geon-hee Recognize 'Joint Responsibility'?

[Financial News] A lawsuit has been filed claiming that former President Yoon Seok-yeol and Mrs. Kim Geon-hee should jointly compensate for the mental damage caused by the declaration of martial law on December 3. Previously, a ruling was made for former President Yoon to compensate 100,000 won per person for the same issue, and now a lawsuit has been filed questioning Mrs. Kim's joint responsibility. However, legal circles predict that it will be difficult to prove whether actual damage occurred, and whether there is a causal relationship between the damage suffered and Mrs. Kim's responsibility.
According to the legal community on the 18th, lawyer Kim Kyung-ho of the law firm Hoin filed a damage compensation lawsuit at the Seoul Central District Court on behalf of 12,225 citizens against former President Yoon and Mrs. Kim, claiming 100,000 won per person in compensation. They plan to continue recruiting additional applicants during the lawsuit process.
The plaintiffs identified Mrs. Kim as the 'direct motive and active participant' of the martial law. The plaintiffs argued in the complaint that former President Yoon's declaration of martial law was a clear illegal act intended to infringe on the basic rights of the people, and that the core motive was a private purpose to block a special investigation into Mrs. Kim. They also pointed out that Mrs. Kim actively communicated with accomplices using secret phones immediately after the declaration of martial law, aiding and supporting its execution.
The characteristic of this lawsuit is that, unlike previous martial law compensation lawsuits, Mrs. Kim is specified as a joint tortfeasor. Article 760 of the Civil Code stipulates that if several people jointly cause harm to others, they bear joint responsibility. This aims to provide relief to victims by considering the cause of the harm as a joint liability.
Responsibility is recognized if the illegal act was committed jointly or if it was instigated (causing others to act) or aided (not taking necessary actions, thereby practically helping it). The plaintiffs cited a Supreme Court ruling that recognizes liability for damages if joint damage occurred due to each person's actions, even if the joint actors did not necessarily share the same perception.
However, there are significant hurdles to overcome. In principle, claims for mental damage compensation require proof of the perpetrator's intent or negligence, the causal relationship between the act and the damage, and whether the victim suffered damage. To prove mental damage, objective materials such as psychological or medical records or diagnosis are generally needed.
Nevertheless, in the first trial related to former President Yoon, compensation was recognized without such medical evidence. Previously, on the 25th of last month, the Seoul Central District Court accepted the claims of 104 citizens who suffered mental damage due to the declaration of martial law and ruled that former President Yoon should pay them 100,000 won each in compensation. The court judged that the degree of illegality of the martial law declaration, the legal binding nature of administrative orders, and the undemocratic and illegal actions taken by former President Yoon before and after the martial law could collectively recognize mental damage.
Despite this, the general outlook of the legal community is that it is uncertain whether the same judgment will be maintained in higher courts and whether joint compensation responsibility can be recognized for Mrs. Kim.
A lawyer who is a former chief judge said, "The first trial ruling recognizing civil liability for compensation related to former President Yoon's declaration of martial law may change in higher courts," and "It is not easy to prove illegal acts due to intent or negligence, and especially to recognize joint illegal acts, the causal relationship of damage occurrence due to joint actions must also be proven, which is more difficult."
Another lawyer also pointed out, "Typical cases where joint illegal acts are recognized are cases like adultery lawsuits where both the adulterer and a third party are held responsible," and "It is rare to apply that legal principle to political issues like this case." Additionally, there was an opinion that "for compensation liability to be recognized, a significant causal relationship between the illegal act and the damage must be proven, but this case is far from the requirements for joint illegal acts."
 
scottchoi15@fnnews.com Choi Eun-sol Reporter