25-Year-Old Seunggeun Reservist Found Dead on Departing Ship... Supreme Court Confirms Workplace Harassment and Industrial Accident Recognition

A ruling recognizing the case of a man in his 20s, a reserve seaman, who made an extreme choice on board after enduring harassment, as a 'work-related injury' has been finalized by the Supreme Court. The bereaved family's claim that 'an environment where workplace harassment would not occur should have been created' was accepted, acknowledging not only the direct perpetrator but also the captain and the company's management responsibility. It has been over five years since Mr. Gu's death and the lawsuit was filed.

According to the legal community on the 21st, the Supreme Court Civil Division 1 (Presiding Justice Lee Dong-won) recently dismissed the appeal without oral argument, thereby affirming the lower court's partial ruling in favor of the bereaved family in the damages claim lawsuit filed by the family of the late Gu Min-hoe against the harassing senior second engineer, the captain, and the company.

Dismissal without oral argument is a system where an appeal is rejected without substantive review if there is no special reason such as a serious violation of law in the lower court's decision.

Previously, Third Engineer Gu passed away at the age of 25 on March 16, 2018, leaving a suicide note while the ship he was working on was passing through the Persian Gulf. The front of the note expressed apologies to his family, and the back contained resentment toward his senior. The bereaved family held the senior accountable for harassment, as well as the captain and the company for failing to protect Gu.

At the time of the incident, Gu was a reserve seaman. Those subject to enlistment who completed the regular education course at an institution designated by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries and obtained a navigator or engineer license are recognized as having completed military service if they perform three years of onboard duty within five years after graduation. However, only the period actually spent onboard is recognized as fulfilling military service.

The bereaved family faced difficulties in securing evidence. Since it was hard to grasp the working environment onboard where Gu worked, they had to reconstruct interpersonal relationships on the ship through witness testimonies and records such as KakaoTalk conversations left by Gu. They also met directly with former reserve seamen to hear explanations.

The first trial found no connection between the harassment and Gu's death, but the appellate court, focusing on Gu's continuous complaints onboard that he was 'having a hard time because of his senior,' ruled differently. During the trial, employees who worked together were summoned as witnesses to determine whether the conflict between Gu and his senior was reported to higher-ups and whether there were related manuals. They also asked, "No matter how big the ship is, it is a confined space, so whether you like your colleagues or not, you have no choice but to be together for several months until the voyage ends."

The appellate court recognized the liability for damages of the senior, the captain, and the company. It also stated that since Gu was substituting for military service, it was difficult for him to easily raise issues or decide to leave the ship even if he faced unfair treatment, and even if the captain was unaware of the detailed situation, he was found to be negligent in his duties as the ultimate person responsible for handling onboard grievances.

Attorney Jung So-yeon, representative lawyer of Law Office Boda, who represented Gu's family, said, "In workplace harassment cases, perpetrators often argue that 'the victim was not good at work,' and companies claim 'they were unaware of the situation,'" adding, "We proved related difficulties through the burdens felt by those involved in the reserve seaman system and the dropout rate, and worked to clarify the company's management and supervisory responsibility for the victim in the isolated onboard living environment."

She continued, "The court recognized that not only the ship management company that directly signed the labor contract but also the shipowner and the captain have protection obligations under the Seafarers Act and must compensate for damages if they fail to fulfill their duty of care for safety," adding, "This is a meaningful ruling for those who could not report or resist because they thought there was insufficient evidence since it happened on a ship, or doubted whether harassment itself was occurring under the strict hierarchical system."