A ruling by the Constitutional Court found that the law allowing posthumous adoptees of Jeju April 3 incident victims to inherit criminal compensation does not violate the Constitution. The court for the first time set a clear standard on the inheritance rights dispute between biological children and posthumous adoptees.
On the 29th, the Constitutional Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality in a constitutional complaint filed by a person surnamed Kang, who argued that Article 18-2, Paragraph 2 of the Special Act on Discovering the Truth of the Jeju April 3 Incident and Restoring the Honor of Victims (April 3 Incident Act) is unconstitutional.
The case arose from a dispute among the bereaved families of April 3 victims over the right to inherit criminal compensation. Kang's father was sentenced to 15 years in prison for insurrection during the April 3 incident in 1948 and was shot to death in 1950 while serving his sentence. In 2021, his acquittal was finalized in a retrial, allowing the family to claim criminal compensation.
The issue was the scope of inheritance. Kang's mother registered a posthumous adoptee, a man identified as A, in 1987 to succeed the head of household. Posthumous adoption was permitted under custom and law at the time but was abolished by a 1991 amendment to the Civil Act. A later sought a retrial that resulted in an acquittal, and criminal compensation was included as an inheritable asset, creating a situation in which Kang, the biological child, and the posthumous adoptee became co-heirs.
Kang argued that "having a biological daughter and a posthumous adoptee inherit together violates the principle of gender equality and infringes on property rights." When the court declined to refer the case for a constitutional review, Kang filed a constitutional complaint.
The Constitutional Court recognized the legal status of posthumous adoptees. The bench said, "If a posthumous adoption was validly formed before the system was abolished, the adoptee's status remains and is equal to that of a biological child." It added, "Defining the scope of heirs to a criminal compensation claim as heirs under the Civil Act is reasonable, and this cannot be seen as infringing the property rights of biological children."
The Constitutional Court also took into account the historical particularity of the Jeju April 3 incident. Many of the victims at the time were young men, and many died without descendants. In Jeju, there was a widespread custom of accepting relatives as posthumous adoptees to continue memorial rites and manage graves.
The bench said, "This custom was an important way for the community to remember and mourn the victims," and noted, "There is a need to recognize inheritance of criminal compensation claims by posthumous adoptees."
With this decision, the rights of posthumous adoptees are expected to be broadly recognized in disputes over criminal compensation among the bereaved families of April 3 incident victims.