Supreme Court Rules for the First Time: "State Must Compensate for Forced Confinement at Hyeongjebokjiwon Before 1975"

Five Victims File Damages Lawsuit Against the State
Original Ruling Overturned, Case Sent Back to Seoul High Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government must be held responsible for victims who were forcibly confined at Hyeongjebokjiwon, even if they were admitted before the government’s official guidelines were established.

Hyeongjebokjiwon. Screenshot from SBS's "Unanswered Questions" broadcast

On November 13, the Supreme Court’s Second Division (Presiding Justice: Oh Kyungmi) overturned the previous court ruling, which had calculated compensation without taking into account the period of confinement before 1975, in a damages lawsuit filed by five victims of Hyeongjebokjiwon against the state. The case has been sent back to the Seoul High Court for retrial.

Hyeongjebokjiwon was an institution created under the instructions of the Ministry of Home Affairs during the Park Chung-hee administration, ostensibly for the rehabilitation of vagrants. From 1975 to 1987, over 38,000 people were forcibly confined there, and more than 650 died due to forced labor, assault, and sexual violence.

The court of first instance ruled that the government must pay a total of approximately 14.5 billion won in compensation to the victims. The appellate court largely upheld this decision and dismissed the government’s appeal. However, it did not accept the victims’ claim that the period of confinement prior to 1975 should be included in the calculation of compensation.

However, the Supreme Court sided with the victims, stating, "There is sufficient reason to believe that the defendant was directly or indirectly involved in the plaintiffs’ forced confinement at Hyeongjebokjiwon before 1975."

The Court further explained, "The authorities continued to crack down on and confine vagrants even before the directive was issued, and this led to the promulgation of the unconstitutional and unlawful directive at the heart of this case." It added, "We have confirmed that illegal state actions may be recognized in relation to the crackdowns and forced confinement that took place prior to the directive’s issuance."