Constitutional Court Rules "Limitation on Mental Damage Compensation for Special Mission Recipients Who Have Been Compensated" Constitutional

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Jung-yoon] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the legal provision preventing special mission operatives who have received state compensation from filing additional lawsuits for damages due to 'mental harm' does not violate the Constitution.

On the 4th, the Constitutional Court announced that it unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the "Act on Compensation for Special Mission Operatives," which sets the conditions for judicial settlement for special operatives who conducted irregular intelligence gathering, rejecting claims that it violates the principle of proportionality.

Article 17-2 of the Special Mission Operatives Compensation Act states that if the applicant agrees, the decision to pay compensation is considered a 'judicial settlement' regarding damages from special mission operations or training. Dispute resolution through judicial settlement has the effect of a final judgment, meaning the victim can no longer claim damages from the state.

The Constitutional Court pointed out, "The basic merit payment included in the special mission operatives' compensation amount is determined by considering whether fundamental rights are unprotected and human rights violations, thus including amounts corresponding to mental harm."

It further ruled, "Since the compensation does not reflect the fault of the special mission operative and the applicant is not required to prove the illegality of state actions, it cannot be considered undercompensated."

In May, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the 5·18 Compensation Act, which prohibits filing damage lawsuits after receiving government support, stating that 'mental suffering' was not considered in the support compensation.

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