Lawyer's Absence Ends School Violence Appeal Case in South Korea

A school violence lawsuit, stalled for three years, has been concluded by a South Korean court, which upheld a prior decision to consider the plaintiff's appeal withdrawn due to the repeated non-appearance of their lawyer. The victim's family expressed deep distress over the outcome, which leaves them with limited recourse.

The case began in 2015 when lawyer Kwon Kyung-ae represented the family of the late Park Ju-won, a victim of school violence, in a damages suit against the school corporation and perpetrators. Although the family partially won in the first trial, they appealed because only one of the approximately ten accused individuals was held liable for damages. However, Kwon Kyung-ae failed to attend three appellate court hearings in 2022. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn, and the family was not informed of this outcome for nearly five months, by which time the window for further appeal had closed.

“

The court stated it could not override the legal effect of the deemed withdrawal of the appeal, even with allegations of the lawyer's intentional misconduct.

Following this, a new legal representative for the family filed a motion to reopen the trial, arguing that the withdrawal should be invalidated. The court convened in May, three years after the initial appeal was dismissed. The family's legal team presented arguments regarding the necessity of witness testimonies and the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal. However, the appellate court maintained its stance, stating that the prior ruling of deemed withdrawal could not be disregarded.

In its final decision on April 24th, the Seoul High Court's Civil Division 8-2 acknowledged the plaintiff's difficult situation, with the presiding judge offering condolences. Nevertheless, the court asserted that the deemed withdrawal of the appeal is a legally binding effect. It stated that allegations of Kwon Kyung-ae's intentional misconduct or abuse of proxy authority were insufficient grounds to negate this legal effect. The court also dismissed the argument that an appeal cannot be considered withdrawn if the subsequent hearing date was not properly notified to the party, acknowledging it as a potential area for procedural improvement but not a basis to invalidate the current ruling. The plaintiff's mother, Lee Ki-cheol, expressed frustration, questioning the fairness of the legal system and vowing to pursue further action.

“

Even though the court offered condolences, they couldn't accept our arguments, and I have to bear the litigation costs. Is this how the law should be?