[Seocho-dong Legal Story] A Criminal Who Committed Sexual Assault 20 Years Ago and Serves Prison Time but Does Not Pay 'Compensation'

"Claim of 'Over 10 Years Expired Compensation Rights'... Supreme Court Says 'Diagnosis Date More Important Than Crime Date'"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] A sexual assault case from 20 years ago. The perpetrator was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but it seemed difficult for the victim to receive compensation for damages. Typically, victims of torts are legally restricted to file lawsuits within 3 years from the date they become aware of the damage and the perpetrator, and within 10 years from the date the tort occurred. Chronologically, the right to claim damages appeared to have expired. The perpetrator in this case also argued that "the right to claim damages expired as more than 10 years have passed since the last offense."

However, a recent new interpretation by the Supreme Court has created an opportunity to expand the rights of victims to seek relief in sexual violence cases of various ages and forms. The Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations for victims of sexual violence to claim damages should be calculated not from the "date the offense occurred," but from the date the victim was diagnosed with a disorder such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The victim is Mr. A, a former tennis player. Thanks to this ruling, Mr. A can now receive compensation for the sexual assault he suffered 20 years ago.

Between 2001 and 2002, when Mr. A was an elementary school student, he was repeatedly sexually assaulted by his tennis coach, Mr. B. In 2012, after reaching adulthood and with the abolition of the statute of limitations for sexual assault against minors, Mr. A attempted to file a complaint against Mr. B but faced limitations due to difficulties in gathering evidence.

In fact, Mr. A decided to file a complaint after learning that, following the social impact of the "Dogani case," from 2010 the statute of limitations for sexual crimes against children and adolescents began from the date the victim reached adulthood, and that from 2012 the statute of limitations for rape against children under 13 was abolished.

From 2012, Mr. A visited numerous sexual violence counseling centers and lawyers, but was often met with disinterest due to the case being old, or was told that the statute of limitations had expired, or that filing a complaint was impossible due to difficulties in collecting evidence.

The problem began when Mr. A encountered Mr. B again. In May 2016, at a tennis tournament, Mr. A unexpectedly met Mr. B, which triggered traumatic memories, leading to short-term memory loss and sleep disorders. In June of that year, Mr. A was diagnosed with PTSD at a hospital and filed a criminal complaint against Mr. B. In October of the following year, Mr. B’s 10-year prison sentence was confirmed.

The bigger issue was compensation for damages. Article 766, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act stipulates that the right to claim damages for torts expires if the victim or their legal representative does not exercise the right within 3 years from the date they become aware of the damage and the perpetrator.

The key issue in the damages lawsuit was whether Mr. A could exercise his right to claim damages for harm suffered 16 years before filing the lawsuit. Mr. B did not respond to the lawsuit and was automatically defeated in the first trial, but from the second trial onward, he argued, "Based on the last offense date of August 2002, Mr. Kim’s right to claim damages has expired," trying to exploit this loophole.

Fortunately, the court’s judgment was different. The second trial court broadened the interpretation of the starting point of the statute of limitations, stating, "The 'date the tort was committed,' which is the starting point for the statute of limitations, specifically refers to the time when the damage occurred." In other words, it considered the date Mr. A was diagnosed with PTSD in 2016, not the date of the sexual assault.

The Supreme Court agreed. It held that the damage caused by Mr. B’s tort became realistic from the time Mr. A was diagnosed by experts with PTSD resulting from the sexual crime.

The legal community expects that this Supreme Court ruling will expand the scope of compensation for sexual crime victims and significantly increase cases of relief. The Supreme Court also emphasized the significance of this ruling, stating, "In cases of tort claims for damages where there is a time gap between the wrongful act and the occurrence of damage, the 'date the tort was committed,' which serves as the starting point for the long-term statute of limitations, means the time when the damage objectively and concretely occurred, that is, when the occurrence of damage became realistic."

In particular, the court expressed concern that "if the date of the sexual crime or the onset of some symptoms is uniformly regarded as the point when damage is realized, victims may be unable to claim damages at the time because the occurrence of future damage is uncertain, and when future damage occurs, the statute of limitations may have already expired, resulting in an unfair outcome where damages cannot be claimed."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.