State May Recover Medical Expenses for Inmate Self-Harm Treatment

The Supreme Court has ruled that the state may exercise its right of recourse for medical expenses incurred when a correctional facility inmate receives treatment for self-harm, is released, and then is re-incarcerated for another crime. On December 11, 2025, the Supreme Court's First Civil Division (Presiding Justice Noh Taeak) overturned the lower court's decision regarding the recourse claim in a lawsuit filed by the government of the Republic of Korea against Mr. A and remanded the case to the Suwon District Court (2025Da215041).

Image to aid understanding of the article. The Asia Business Daily DB

[Facts]

Mr. A had been held in a correctional institution since 2012 and engaged in self-harm at Daegu Prison in January 2022. He was released in July of the same year upon completion of his sentence.

In October, Mr. A was re-arrested for the crime of special intimidation and admitted to Suwon Detention Center. Until February of the following year, he received surgery and outpatient treatment for the previous self-harm incident. The government spent approximately 35,350,000 won on Mr. A's medical treatment. The government filed a recourse lawsuit, stating, "Since the state covered the medical expenses resulting from Mr. A's self-harm, he must reimburse the corresponding amount."

[Lower Court Ruling]

Article 37, Paragraph 5 of the Act on the Execution of Sentences and Treatment of Inmates stipulates, "If an inmate receives medical treatment at an external medical facility due to injury or other reasons caused by his or her own intent or gross negligence, the warden may require the inmate to bear all or part of the medical expenses."

The first and second instance courts interpreted this provision to mean that, for the state to seek recourse for medical expenses, the injury must occur and treatment must be provided while the inmate's status is maintained. Since Mr. A lost his inmate status after being released following the self-harm incident and received treatment only after being re-incarcerated, the courts found that the provision did not apply and ruled against the state.

[Supreme Court Ruling]

The Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for the inmate status to be maintained at both the time of injury and the time of treatment in order for the state to seek recourse for medical expenses. The Supreme Court stated, "The head of a correctional facility may require an inmate to bear all or part of the medical expenses if the inmate receives treatment at an external medical facility due to injury or other reasons caused by his or her own intent or gross negligence," and added, "In exceptional cases where injury occurs due to the inmate's own intent or gross negligence, the state has the right to claim recourse for all or part of the medical or treatment expenses paid to the inmate." The court further explained, "It is not necessary for the injury and treatment to occur while the inmate is in custody for the same reason."

The Supreme Court concluded, "The lower court's decision to dismiss the recourse claim on the grounds that the inmate status at the time of self-harm was not maintained until the time of treatment at an external medical facility was based on a misunderstanding of the legal requirements for the right of recourse under the Act on the Execution of Sentences, which affected the outcome of the ruling."

An Jaemyung, Legal Times Reporter

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