Korea is leading the way, through its courts, in providing compensation for damages allegedly caused by the COVID-19 Vaccination. A recent ruling by the Seoul Administrative Court has marked a significant development in Korea’s vaccine-related compensation jurisprudence. The Seoul Administrative Court held that a causal relationship existed between the taking of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination and a patient’s subsequent diagnosis of acute transverse myelitis and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). This Korean court noted that a causal relationship can be inferred based on temporal proximity, medical probability, and the absence of other plausible causes.
Vaccine Damage Lawsuits in Korea at the Seoul Administrative Court
Background to the COVID-19 Vaccination Damages Cases at Seoul Administrative Court
- The Plaintiff, a 25-year-old healthy male, received his first dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine on March 4, 2021. Approximately ten hours later, he developed severe symptoms including a fever, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, muscle pain, and weakness in his left arm and leg.
- The Plaintiff was diagnosed with unspecified encephalitis, myelitis, acute transverse myelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
- In March 2021, the Plaintiff applied to the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) for compensation under the Infectious Disease Prevention Act of Korea. The application was denied on the grounds that “causality is difficult to establish.”
- The KDCA characterized his symptoms as Miller-Fisher syndrome and concluded that insufficient data existed to establish causality (Category 4-1). The Agency provided only partial medical expense support under a temporary program for “diseases with suspected relevance.”
- After multiple objections, the KDCA reaffirmed its denial on February 14, 2024. The Plaintiff brought an administrative lawsuit challenging the Agency’s decision.
The Seoul Administrative Court’s Decision on COVID-19 Vaccination Damages Cases
In August of 2025, the Seoul Administrative Court reversed the KDCA’s determination and ordered compensation, emphasizing that the causal connection for vaccine injury claims need not be medically or scientifically proven with specific certainty. Instead, it is sufficient if causality may be reasonably inferred based on indirect facts and the totality of circumstances.
The Korean court emphatically criticized the KDCA’s reliance on its internal “Category 4-1” classification, which refers to cases where evidence of causality is deemed insufficient. The ruling noted that the Agency had misapplied a Supreme Court of Korea precedent, which allows causation to be inferred where the cause of disability is unknown or not attributable to other factors.
This Korean administrative court clarified that if credible domestic or international data, such as case reports or statistical correlations, support the possibility of causality, then a causal inference should generally be accepted under Korean administrative law principles.
Key Elements to Determine Causality in Korea
1. Temporal Proximity
The Court found clear temporal proximity, noting that adverse reactions manifested approximately ten hours after vaccination and persisted, leading to long-term hospitalization and neurological complications.
2. Medical Possibility
The Court cited the AstraZeneca product information, which lists GBS and transverse myelitis as very rare but reported adverse events. It also referenced domestic and international medical literature confirming similar cases, concluding that it is not “impossible in medical theory or empirical principles” to infer a causal link.
3. Exclusion of Other Causes
The Court observed that the plaintiff was previously healthy, had no neurological history, and underwent a routine health check immediately before vaccination. No alternative condition was identified during hospitalization. It rejected the KDCA’s claim of a genetic predisposition to Behcet’s disease, stating that a positive HLA-B51 test result alone cannot support such a diagnosis.
Accordingly, the Korean court determined that the disability’s cause was “at least unknown” and that there were “no circumstances to believe it was caused by another factor.”
Rejection of KDCA’s Defense
The KDCA argued that the plaintiff had already received benefits under the Suspected Related Disease Support Program, which covers medical expenses up to 50 million KRW, rendering the lawsuit moot. The Court dismissed this claim, emphasizing that the support program is temporary and lacks a statutory basis, and therefore does not substitute for compensation under the Infectious Disease Prevention Act of Korea.
Legal Significance of the Ruling
This ruling underscores a broader judicial shift toward a more claimant-friendly interpretation of causality in vaccine injury cases. By recognizing inferential causation based on circumstantial evidence rather than requiring definitive medical proof, the decision may expand access to compensation for individuals suffering severe adverse reactions following vaccination.
About IPG Legal
IPG Legal is a leading full-service law firm with extensive experience in administrative litigation, medical law, and complex disputes involving government agencies in Korea. IPG Legal is rated a leading dispute resolution law firm. The firm is composed of seasoned foreign and Korean attorneys with decades of experience handling complex litigation, corporate, and regulatory matters. IPG Legal regularly advises multinational corporations, SMEs, and individuals on a range of issues, including commercial disputes, criminal defense, administrative litigation, foreign investment, intellectual property, and family law. Its lawyers are recognized for delivering practical, strategic, and results-driven legal solutions grounded in a clear understanding of both Korean and international legal systems.
by Sean Hayes
Sean Hayes is the first non-Korean attorney to have worked for the Korean court system (Constitutional Court of Korea) and one of the first non-Koreans to be a regular member of a Korean law faculty. Sean is ranked, for Korea, as one of only two non-Korean lawyers, by AsiaLaw, as a Top Attorney, and IPG Legal is consistently ranked as the top dispute resolution law firm for our litigation and arbitration services.
If you would like a consultation with an English-speaking lawyer in Korea, please schedule a call at: Schedule a Call with an Attorney.