National Compensation Suit: Battle Over Truths in 'Abducted Fishermen' Case Appellate Hearing

In an appellate hearing for a state compensation lawsuit filed by fishermen who were abducted by North Korea in the 1970s-80s and their bereaved families, heated arguments ensued over the state's responsibility at the time. These fishermen were abducted by North Korea while fishing in the East Sea during the 1970s-80s and were detained and investigated for an extended period by investigative agencies immediately after their return. Some were tortured into forced confessions and punished for espionage, followed by decades of surveillance and monitoring.

The plaintiffs argued that the state failed to prevent the abductions by not taking even minimal security and rescue measures. They contended that the state neglected its duty to care for and protect the safety of its citizens. Conversely, the defendant, the Republic of Korea, maintained its stance that preventing abductions was difficult given the maritime defense capabilities and security conditions at the time. The Republic of Korea consistently held that preventing abductions was challenging due to the maritime defense capabilities and security conditions of that era.

The first trial ruled in favor of some plaintiffs, though it did not acknowledge a breach of the state's 'duty of care.' The judge at the Chuncheon District Court's Sokcho Branch, which presided over the first trial, ordered the defendant, the Republic of Korea, to pay approximately 22 million won out of the initial claim amount to plaintiff Kim Chun-sam. The first trial court found insufficient grounds to acknowledge that the state had neglected its objective duty of care to protect the fishermen during the abduction process, thus denying a violation of the state's duty of care.

In the appellate hearing, points were raised that could overturn this judgment. The appellate court saw a clash in the parties' positions regarding the state's ability to prevent abductions. Moon Jang-ryeol, a former professor at the National Defense University and a military expert appointed by the court, concluded that the Republic of Korea was not incapable of preventing North Korean fishing boat abductions at the time. Professor Moon stated that as of 1971, South Korea held overwhelming superiority over North Korea in terms of war-fighting capabilities, including combined US-ROK forces, and the South Korean Navy possessed the capacity to deter or rescue fishing boats from abduction. Opinions suggested that prompt responses would have been possible if maritime military exercises had been frequent and communication networks had functioned properly. The expert witness's assessment raised the possibility of highlighting the state's responsibility not just for its incompetence in failing to prevent abductions, but for failing to prevent them despite being capable of doing so.

Separate from the state's incompetence in failing to prevent the fishermen's abduction by North Korea, what awaited the returned fishermen was not solace but state violence. According to the first trial ruling, Kim Chun-sam was subjected to all-night interrogations from the beginning of the joint investigation after his return, and forced to make false statements about praising North Korea and receiving special orders, experiencing brutal treatment. He testified that he was beaten with fists, subjected to electric torture, and tortured by having chili pepper-infused water poured in his face, making it difficult to breathe. Lim Bok-nam also recounted similar experiences, stating that one night he was dragged away by security agents armed with pistols, handcuffed, and beaten, including being stomped on with military boots. The argument that measures for national security led to violence that trampled on citizens' human rights indicated that the state had abandoned its duty to protect its citizens and had instead committed acts of aggression.

On this day, the court deliberated on the state's responsibility for violating its duty to prevent abductions and for state violence after their return, based on the expert witness's opinions and the fishermen's testimonies. The core issue in the compensation lawsuit is the state's responsibility at the time of the abductions. The outcome of the appellate hearing is seen as a turning point in clarifying the truth of the state violence experienced by the abducted and returned fishermen and in determining the scope of responsibility that the state rightfully bears.