Court Orders South Korea to Compensate Victim of Re-education Camp

A South Korean court has ruled that the government must compensate a victim of the re-education camp known as Samcheong Education Center approximately 200 million won (about $150,000).

On June 3, the Seoul High Court's Civil Division 33, led by Judge Lee Chang-hyung, partially upheld the victim A's claim for damages against the state in a recent appellate ruling.

A was forcibly taken to the Samcheong Education Center in August 1980 for re-education. After completing the program in September of the same year, A was sent to a labor service unit where he was subjected to forced labor. In January 1981, he received a two-year protective detention sentence.

In March 1981, A escaped from the detention facility but was recaptured and sentenced to four months in prison. He was released in May 1983 after completing his protective detention.

In May 2022, A filed a lawsuit seeking damages from the government.

The first trial ruled that the state must pay A over 220 million won. The court stated, "A was significantly deprived of his dignity as a human being and his constitutional rights to personal freedom and residence due to unlawful arrest and detention without legal procedures. The state has a duty to protect the basic rights of its citizens and is responsible for compensating all damages resulting from its unlawful actions against A."

The court determined that A's lost income should be calculated for the 33 months from his arrest in August 1980 until his release in May 1983.

Regarding A's escape, the court noted that while the exact duration of his escape is unclear, it should be considered a period of unjust detention due to the unlawful actions against him, and thus included in the calculation of damages.

The appellate court also recognized the government's liability for damages, ruling that A, who had received a supplementary military service designation, should receive an additional payment of over 3 million won for his military service.

Both parties did not appeal the ruling, finalizing the appellate court's decision.