A first-instance ruling has been made that the state must compensate victims who were taken to the Samcheong Education Center in the 1980s.



Court Rules State Liable for 90 Million Won Compensation to Samcheong Education Camp Victims View original image

On the 1st, the Civil Division 48 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Do-gyun) ruled in a lawsuit filed by victim A against the state for 300 million won in damages, ordering the state to pay A 90 million won.


The court stated, "The Supreme Court has ruled that Martial Law Proclamation No. 13, which was the basis for establishing the Samcheong Education Center, was illegal," and added, "From the same standpoint as the Supreme Court ruling on Emergency Measure No. 9 during the Yushin regime, the state's liability for compensation to victims of the Samcheong Education Center is also recognized."


Furthermore, the court explained, "A was illegally detained by state authorities for two years and six months, suffering severe physical and mental pain," and "The amount of consolation money was calculated considering that A likely endured harsh treatment while undergoing re-education at that time."


A was illegally detained by the police in October 1980, handed over to the Samcheong Education Center, and subjected to forced labor and frequent beatings until being released from the Cheongsong Protective Custody Center in June 1983. The legal team representing A, composed of lawyers from the Lawyers for a Democratic Society (Minbyun), stated, "A was stigmatized as a former detainee of the Samcheong Education Center and Cheongsong Protective Custody Center and suffers from trauma as a result of the violence endured at that time," and filed the lawsuit in December 2020.



Victims of the Samcheong Education Center had previously filed damage claims against the state, but until 2003, the Supreme Court rejected these claims on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. After the Supreme Court invalidated Martial Law Proclamation No. 13 in 2018, victims were able to argue that a short statute of limitations applies, leading to a series of lawsuits being filed.


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

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.

Today’s Briefing