Bereaved Family of Late Park Won-soon Appeals Court Ruling, Affirming "Sexual Harassment Acknowledged" Human Rights Commission Decision as Lawful

At the funeral ceremony of the late Park Won-soon, former Mayor of Seoul, his wife Kang Nan-hee is immersed in grief. Photo by Joint Press Corps

[Asia Economy Legal Affairs Specialist Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Reporter Kim Dae-hyun] The bereaved family of the late Park Won-soon, former Mayor of Seoul, has filed an appeal against the court ruling that upheld the National Human Rights Commission's recommendation recognizing Park's sexual harassment of a subordinate employee as lawful.

According to the legal community on the 28th, Kang Nan-hee, the spouse of former Mayor Park, submitted a notice of appeal to the Seoul Administrative Court, the court of first instance, challenging the loss in the lawsuit seeking to annul the Human Rights Commission's recommendation.

Former Mayor Park was found dead near Sukjeongmun at Bukaksan Mountain in Seoul on July 10, 2020. Subsequently, it became known that he had been accused of forcible molestation by a subordinate, a Seoul city official.

The victim's side reported that Park sent inappropriate messages, photos, and emoticons late at night, and touched the victim's nails and hands, which had been manicured in the office. Due to Park's death, the police closed the investigation in December of that year without resolving the sexual harassment allegations.

However, in January of the following year, the Human Rights Commission conducted an ex officio investigation and concluded that Park's conduct toward the victim constituted sexual harassment. Furthermore, the Commission recommended that Seoul City protect the victim, prevent secondary damage, improve the secretariat's operational practices based on gender role stereotypes, and establish gender equality job guidelines.

Kang filed an administrative lawsuit in April, contesting the Human Rights Commission's decision.

However, on the 15th, the 8th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Lee Jeong-hee) ruled that "the Human Rights Commission's corrective recommendation at the time was lawful," and dismissed the plaintiff's case.

The court stated, "Each act in this case was not a one-time occurrence but happened multiple times over a long period, causing mental distress," and added, "Each act constitutes sexual conduct and reaches the level of sexual harassment by causing sexual humiliation or discomfort to the victim."

The court noted, "Objective evidence and testimonies from related parties are consistent and cannot be arbitrarily dismissed," pointing out that "witnesses who saw Park sending messages such as 'What are you doing?', 'Your scent is nice, sniff sniff', 'Shall I come to your house?', and 'Are you alone?' via Telegram late at night corroborate the victim's claims."

It further stated, "These testimonies are based on direct observations and provide detailed information about time, place, and circumstances. They are so specific that it would be difficult to express without experience," adding, "Telegram recovery results confirmed records of Park sending messages like 'You should get a husband soon' and 'Always by my side, you know'."

The court also found true the claims that Park sent selfies or provocative female emoticons and touched the victim's manicured nails in the office.

In particular, the court emphasized, "Park, as a superior at work, could influence the victim's status. The victim had no choice but to consider possible job-related disadvantages if the harm was made public."

During the trial, Kang's side raised concerns about the victim sending messages such as "I love you" and "See you in my dreams" to Park, but the court said, "Other employees in the department also used such expressions as a sign of respect," and added, "These are passive expressions used to avoid and end conversations when Park made sexually uncomfortable remarks. It is likely that the victim said these to appease Park and avoid conflict."

Furthermore, the court pointed out, "According to the plaintiff's argument, a victim of workplace sexual harassment should immediately become gloomy and helpless upon experiencing harm. This is a subjective assumption based on 'the victim would have shown such behavior' and overlooks the diverse ways sexual harassment victims may respond."