South Korea: Amend law to allow exceptions for legal cost recovery

A group of non-regular workers, after losing a state compensation lawsuit against the government, are facing a demand for 33.78 million won in legal costs. This situation has sparked calls for amending the National Litigation Act to include exceptions for recovering such expenses, particularly when the government employs expensive private law firms.

“

Due to current laws, if we do not claim the litigation costs as ruled by the judgment, we would be punished for embezzlement and dereliction of duty, so unfortunately, we cannot help it.

The workers were forcibly dispersed from a protest in July 2023 and subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking state compensation. After their case was dismissed, the government initiated the recovery of legal fees. President Lee Jae-myung stated on social media that current laws mandate the recovery of these costs to avoid charges of embezzlement or dereliction of duty, expressing regret over the situation.

“

The government's mandatory recovery of litigation costs from citizens, which significantly impacts their lives, should be based on a legal foundation.

However, legal experts argue that the mandatory recovery of legal costs is not explicitly stipulated in the National Litigation Act itself but rather in its enforcement decree. They contend that forcing citizens to pay these costs, which significantly impacts their lives, should be based on a direct legal foundation, aligning with the principle of administrative law that requires laws for restricting rights or imposing obligations. The absence of such a direct provision in the main act is seen as a violation of this principle.

“

The National Police Agency's regulations allow for the waiver of litigation cost recovery if deemed inappropriate.

Furthermore, internal police regulations allow for the waiver of legal cost recovery in certain circumstances, such as when it is deemed inappropriate to charge the opposing party. Critics also question the government's decision to hire a top-tier law firm for the lawsuit, incurring substantial attorney fees that were partially passed on to the plaintiffs. They argue that government officials, particularly those from the police who handled the initial dispersal, should have managed the litigation internally, thus avoiding these significant expenses and the subsequent burden on the workers. The case highlights a perceived disconnect between the government's stated commitment to justice and its legal practices, prompting demands for legislative reform.

“

The government's hiring of a private law firm for the lawsuit incurred significant attorney fees, which were partially passed on to the plaintiffs.