[Invest&Law] Alimony Calculation Method Redesigned After 10 Years

Seminar by the Tort Litigation Research Association:
"Establishing Calculation Guidelines Based on Objective Evidence"
Calculating Damages with Objectivity
Utilizing Economics, Psychology, and Neuroscience
Urgent Need for New Guidelines

Discussions on the actualization of compensation amounts have begun in the courts for the first time in about 10 years. As criticisms that "the amount of compensation recognized by the courts is excessively low" have continued for years both inside and outside the legal community, the intention is to modernize the method of calculating compensation so that substantial damage recovery can be achieved in line with changing times.

The Tort Litigation Research Association (Chairman Park Hyung-soon, Chief Judge) held its 2nd seminar on March 27 at the Supreme Court's conference room in Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, discussing the need to redesign compensation-related legislation to fairly and objectively evaluate the victim's mental suffering in a socially acceptable manner. The Tort Litigation Research Association is an officially registered research group within the courts, with about 100 judges participating and active.

Professor Park Hye-jin (Judicial Research and Training Institute, 37th class) of Hanyang University Law School, who presented at the seminar, said, "Compensation has long been a core area of non-pecuniary damages under civil law, but its calculation method has been criticized for being unclear and lacking consistency." She added, "If guidelines based on objective evidence are established and a review committee that can continuously supplement and revise them is set up, it could contribute to securing the appropriateness of the compensation system in the future."

Professor Park suggested as an improvement measure that it would be appropriate to refer to methodologies from adjacent fields such as economics, psychology, and neuroscience, selecting or combining suitable approaches according to the type of unlawful act. She proposed introducing objective evaluation criteria and creating educational programs to reduce judges' biases, using a behavioral economics approach to prevent anchoring effects and loss aversion tendencies. The anchoring effect refers to cases where the claimed amount influences the judgment of compensation, and loss aversion is the tendency for people to perceive losses more strongly than gains of the same size.

Compensation refers to damages for mental suffering or harm caused by unlawful acts. Currently, the calculation of compensation in damage lawsuits grants broad discretion to the courts. The courts determine the amount of compensation at their discretion by considering all circumstances that arise until the conclusion of the fact-finding trial.

Discussions on the actualization of compensation amounts have begun in the courts for the first time in about 10 years. As criticisms that "the amount of compensation recognized by the courts is excessively low" have continued for years both inside and outside the legal community, the intention is to modernize the method of calculating compensation so that substantial damage recovery can be achieved in line with changing times.

The Tort Litigation Research Association (Chairman Park Hyung-soon, Chief Judge) held its 2nd seminar on March 27 at the Supreme Court's conference room in Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, discussing the need to redesign compensation-related legislation to fairly and objectively evaluate the victim's mental suffering in a socially acceptable manner. The Tort Litigation Research Association is an officially registered research group within the courts, with about 100 judges participating and active.

Professor Park Hye-jin (Judicial Research and Training Institute, 37th class) of Hanyang University Law School, who presented at the seminar, said, "Compensation has long been a core area of non-pecuniary damages under civil law, but its calculation method has been criticized for being unclear and lacking consistency." She added, "If guidelines based on objective evidence are established and a review committee that can continuously supplement and revise them is set up, it could contribute to securing the appropriateness of the compensation system in the future."

Professor Park suggested as an improvement measure that it would be appropriate to refer to methodologies from adjacent fields such as economics, psychology, and neuroscience, selecting or combining suitable approaches according to the type of unlawful act. She proposed introducing objective evaluation criteria and creating educational programs to reduce judges' biases, using a behavioral economics approach to prevent anchoring effects and loss aversion tendencies. The anchoring effect refers to cases where the claimed amount influences the judgment of compensation, and loss aversion is the tendency for people to perceive losses more strongly than gains of the same size.

Compensation refers to damages for mental suffering or harm caused by unlawful acts. Currently, the calculation of compensation in damage lawsuits grants broad discretion to the courts. The courts determine the amount of compensation at their discretion by considering all circumstances that arise until the conclusion of the fact-finding trial.

Han Su-hyun, Legal Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.