[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Park Jin-hyung] Following the death of former President Jeon Du-hwan, the appeal trial related to his memoir civil lawsuit will be continued by his spouse, Lee Soon-ja.
On the 30th, the 2nd Civil Division of the Gwangju High Court held an appeal hearing for the damages claim lawsuit filed by four May 18 organizations and the bereaved family of the late Father Cho Bi-o, represented by Father Jo Young-dae, against Jeon and his son Jeon Jae-guk.
The lawsuit procedures had been suspended due to Jeon's death.
In such cases, the 'litigation succession' process must be completed, where Jeon's heirs take over the lawsuit.
The defendant's legal representative stated, "Jeon's spouse has decided to inherit solely," adding, "The related procedures have not yet been finalized."
The court indicated that the succession procedure must precede the conclusion of the trial and planned to conclude the hearing at the next session. The final argument, originally scheduled for that day, will be held on May 25 at 2 p.m. in the same courtroom.
The plaintiff's legal representative said that ahead of the change in lawsuit parties, they would reorganize the reasons and purpose of the claim, including whether to limit the publication ban request to only the son Jae-guk, and submit it to the court.
Previously, the first-instance civil court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that 23 claims described in Jeon's memoir?such as North Korean military involvement, helicopter gunfire, martial law troops' use of firearms, and the assault on Gwangju Prison?were falsehoods without objective evidence.
Jeon appealed, arguing, "It is unfair to interpret that the plaintiffs' honor was damaged by specifying unproven suspicions during the May 18 incident as facts. No victims were specified, and there was no intent to defame."
The May 18 organizations, while generally respecting the first-instance ruling partially in favor of the plaintiffs, appealed, stating that the 'martial law troops armored vehicle death incident,' which was not recognized as grounds for defamation and damages, should be reconsidered.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
