The Supreme Court of Korea overturned a lower court’s ruling that the statute of limitations had expired in a lawsuit filed by the families of the alleged victims of the “May 18 Democratization Movement” (May 18, 1980). The full bench of the Korean Supreme Court ruled that courts in Korea should consider the circumstances that made it difficult for the families to file a lawsuit due to past compensation payments and the presumption of settlement clause.

For additional articles on the Korean Statute of Limitations, please see: Korean Statute of Limitations in Civil Cases in Korea.

Facts

  1. On January 22, 2026, the Supreme Court’s full bench ruled in favor of the families of alleged victims and overturned the lower court holdings ( 2023da285162 ) and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court.
  2. Plaintiffs are family members of alleged victims who died or were injured during the May 18 Democratization Movement.
  3. In the 1990s, the Korean government paid compensation to victims and some of their families under the Act on Compensation for Persons Involved in the Gwangju Democratization Movement. This law included a “presumed settlement” clause stating that if a victim agreed to compensation, it would be considered a legal settlement for all damages suffered in connection with the May 18 Uprising.
  4. In May 2021, the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that this provision was unconstitutional because it blocked the right to claim compensation from the state for mental harm.
  5. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation from the Korean government for the mental harm suffered by the family members.
  6. The court of first instance ruled in part in favor of the plaintiffs. The court ruled that there was a legal impediment to the presumption of settlement clause, and that the statute of limitations would run from the date of the Constitutional Court’s decision.
  7. The appellate court overturned the lower court’s decision. The appellate court ruled that the families’ losses were not eligible for compensation under the Gwangju Democratization Compensation Act, and therefore, the presumed settlement clause did not apply. Therefore, the court ruled that the statute of limitations had run, as the compensation payments were made in the 1990s.

Supreme Court of Korea

The full bench of the Supreme Court of Korea ruled that the families’ right to claim compensation had not yet been extinguished by a three-year statute of limitations under the Civil Act of Korea, holding that the standard “for determining when the right can be exercised is the objective and reasonable possibility of exercising the right.”

Thus, the majority of the Court opined that “the fact that the families of the related persons were unable to exercise their rights was in part due to the state’s belated enactment and enforcement of compensation-related laws, which narrowly defined the subject and scope of compensation and attempted to quickly complete the compensation process.”

    The Korean Supreme Court, thus, when the Korean Constitutional Court issued its ruling, stated that families could also claim compensation for emotional distress separately. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the Korean Constitutional Court’s ruling.

    Concurring Opinion
    Justice Kyung-mi OH agreed with the judgment, but opined that the families’ right to claim compensation based on the principle of good faith and was therefore an abuse of rights that could not be permitted.

    Dissenting Opinion
    Justice Tae-ak NOH     Justice Noh dissented noting, “While adequate compensation must be provided for the suffering suffered by the families, under current legal theory, the statute of limitations for the families’ right to claim compensation has run out.” Justice Roh pointed out that the majority opinion contradicted existing precedent and the spirit of the statute of limitations system, and stated that victim relief should be addressed through legislation – not through a court.

    by Sean Hayes

    Sean Hayes is regarded by numerous rating services and the legal community in Korea as one of the leading foreign legal practitioners in South Korea, particularly in complex cross-border matters involving Korean law while IPG Legal is consistently ranked one of the top dispute resolution law firms in Korea.

    Sean is notably recognized as the first non-Korean to serve within the Korean court system as a government attorney (Constitutional Court of Korea). This experience provided him with rare, first-hand insight into the internal workings, decision-making processes, and practical application of law within the Judiciary of South Korea, an advantage shared by very few private practitioners—Korean or foreign. Building on this foundation and his graduate education in the United States, Korea, and the United Kingdom, Sean Hayes has developed a distinguished career advising multinational corporations, foreign investors, and high-net-worth individuals on Korean litigation, regulatory compliance, corporate governance, employment and labor matters, inheritance disputes, market entry issues, and international arbitration. His work is frequently informed by a deep understanding of how Korean courts analyze evidence, assess credibility, and apply statutory and case law in practice.At IPG Legal, Mr. Hayes is particularly valued for bridging cultural and legal gaps between Korea and overseas clients. His unique background, which combines Western legal training with direct experience in the Korean judiciary, enables him to deliver strategic, pragmatic, and court-ready advice that reflects not only what the law says, but also how it is actually enforced in Korea.

    You may schedule an initial free consultation with our Attorney at: Schedule a Call with an Attorney