‘Priority to seniors’ in compensation for people of national merit is unconstitutional… What issues does the lawyer tell you about?

Last April, a case I handled while working as a litigation aid lawyer at the Seoul High Court resulted in the Constitutional Court ruling that it was unconstitutional. Considering that the Constitutional Court's decision rate of unconstitutionality or non-constitutionality is only about 4.2% of all cases, this decision is even more noteworthy.

The origin of the problem was Article 13 of the ‘Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of National Merit, etc.’ (hereinafter referred to as the National Meritorious Persons Act), which contains information on the order of payment of compensation to the bereaved families of persons of national merit. This provision stipulates that when there are two or more survivors of the same rank and there is no agreement between the survivors, compensation is to be paid first to 'the person who mainly supported the person of merit.' However, if even this requirement is not met, compensation is paid to an ‘older person (elderly person)’ in accordance with Article 13, Paragraph 2, Item 3. This ‘senior priority’ clause was the key issue in the case.

The client who was entrusted with the case was the second daughter of a person of national merit. Although she faithfully supported her father for many years, she was unable to reach an agreement with her other siblings about receiving compensation. It was difficult to objectively prove past support. In the end, the client was refused compensation based on the ‘elderly priority’ rule and filed a lawsuit.

However, the first trial result was a loss. Afterwards, the client came to see me and we went to the appeal trial together, but the claim was dismissed for the same reason. Believing that there was a problem with the provisions of the law itself, the author persuaded his client to file an appeal to the Supreme Court and request a review of the law's unconstitutionality.

The Constitutional Court ruled that determining compensation recipients solely based on a contingent circumstance such as ‘age’ violates the principle of equality. This makes it clear that not receiving compensation just because one is not an elder, even though one has fulfilled the actual duty of support, is against the concept of justice.

Due to the nature of constitutional court cases, citation decisions are extremely rare, and even if a case is won, there are often no direct economic benefits. Nevertheless, the reason why I did not give up on this case until the end was because I believed that it would be an important opportunity to correct the unreasonable system of our society beyond the relief of individual rights. Of course, this decision is another beginning. We hope that this decision will be a turning point in presenting fair and just standards to all bereaved families who may find themselves in similar situations in the future.
 

Small Business Team

[View full article]
'Elders first' in compensation for national merit is unconstitutional... What issues does the lawyer tell you about? (Shortcut)