The Seoul Transportation Corporation must pay a total of 10 million won to the parents of the victim who died in the 'Shindang Station stalking murder case,' according to an appellate court ruling. The earlier first trial determined that the Seoul Transportation Corporation had no liability for compensation, but the result was overturned in the second trial.
On the 16th, the Seoul High Court's Civil Division 3-3 (judges Bae Yong-jun, Gyeon Jong-cheol, and Choi Hyun-jong) overturned the first trial's ruling, which had dismissed the claims of four relatives against the Seoul Transportation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) in a damages lawsuit amounting to over 1 billion won, and issued a partial victory for the plaintiffs.
The court stated, "The Corporation did not properly handle the victim's personal information, and the claims of the relatives that the Corporation failed to fulfill its duty of care as the user are partially valid," and ruled that "the Corporation must compensate a total of 10 million won, at 5 million won each, to the father and mother among the four relatives of the victim."
However, the court dismissed the claims of the remaining two relatives, including the victim's younger sister and uncle.
The perpetrator, Jeon Ju-hwan (34), murdered the victim, a female colleague he had entered the Corporation with, in a women's restroom at Shindang Station on Line 2 of the Seoul Subway on September 14, 2022, using a weapon he had prepared in advance. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in October of the following year.
At the time of the crime, Jeon Ju-hwan had been urgently apprehended by the police on stalking charges and was suspended from his position. Nevertheless, he was able to maintain his employee status, access the Corporation's internal network, check the victim's address and work information, and plan the crime.
Last year, the first trial ruled that the Corporation was not liable, resulting in a loss for the plaintiffs. The Corporation claimed, "Jeon Ju-hwan searched for the victim's workplace while concealing the fact he had been disciplined, and the murder itself was an extremely unusual act, making it difficult for the Corporation to prevent (it)," and the court accepted this argument.