Martial law damages became a legal reality for former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol after a significant court ruling. On Friday, the Seoul Central District Court ordered Yoon to pay a total of 10.5 million won ($7,597) in compensation. This decision came after 105 citizens filed a civil lawsuit claiming emotional distress related to the imposition of martial law.
As a result, each plaintiff will receive 100,000 won ($75.30) under the court’s decision. Furthermore, the court also ruled that Yoon must cover all legal costs for the case. Judges emphasized that citizens had experienced “fear, anxiety, despair, and humiliation” due to the government’s extreme actions. According to the court, these outcomes directly linked to Yoon’s decision to declare martial law.
In particular, the court agreed with plaintiffs who claimed Yoon’s declaration and related measures were unconstitutional. Judges referred to Article 750 of the Civil Act, which defines “intentional torts to person.” They ruled that Yoon’s behavior met that legal threshold.
Moreover, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued that Yoon’s actions violated democratic principles. They described his conduct not as simple misconduct but as an “unconstitutional act of insurrection.” These statements came after a pretrial hearing held on June 27.
Previously, South Korean courts dismissed similar lawsuits. For example, in 2020, the top court rejected a case linked to former President Park Geun-hye’s abuse of power scandal. However, lawyers in the current case insisted their argument stood on stronger legal ground.
They further noted that Park’s misconduct was considered personal wrongdoing. In contrast, they claimed Yoon’s imposition of martial law impacted the entire nation’s constitutional order. That difference, they said, justified viewing this lawsuit through a separate lens.
In support of their position, they referenced a past Supreme Court ruling. That case involved former President Park Chung-hee’s emergency decree in 1975. At that time, the court held the state liable for arrests and detentions under that decree.
Ultimately, this ruling may influence future claims related to martial law damages. It sets a legal precedent that former presidents can be held personally responsible for emotional harm caused by unconstitutional actions. Consequently, legal experts suggest this may open the door for more civil suits tied to government overreach.
