According to reports, Kwon’s legal representative submitted a written response to the Seoul Central District Court Civil Appeal Division 6-3 on November 3rd, arguing, “The promissory note was an agreement conditioned on preventing the spread of Kwon’s fault.” They claim that the agreement is invalid because Kwon’s negligence has been reported in the news.
Kwon’s side also stated, “Even if the promissory note is valid, it cannot be separately recognized because it overlaps with the solatium, which is compensation for mental damages.”
Previously, Kwon acknowledged her mistake and provided the victim’s family with a promissory note stating that she would pay a total of โฉ90 million, โฉ30 million per year for three years. (KRW or โฉ is the currency symbol for the South Korean Won.)
However, the bereaved family asserts that the promissory note was not written with the condition that it would not be publicized in news articles. The legal representative for the family stated, “Kwon did not mention any such condition to the bereaved family at the time, and such a condition cannot be found in the promissory note.”
Regarding Kwon’s argument that it overlaps with the solatium, they stated, “If it does overlap, the amount of the solatium should be at least the amount stated in the promissory note, which is โฉ90 million or more.”
In the first trial, the court ruled that Kwon should compensate the client, the family of the school violence victim, with โฉ50 million in solatium.
This case highlights the ethical responsibilities of legal professionals and the emotional toll on victims’ families in school violence cases.
From : https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/214/0001418271?sid=102
๋ต๊ธ ๋จ๊ธฐ๊ธฐ