Related: A Second Betrayal: Yeosu-Suncheon Victims’ Families Say Justice Has Been Stolen Again
What happened and why it still looms
SEOUL, Nov. 11 (Korea Bizwire) — The Yeosu–Suncheon Incident (October 1948 onward) erupted when soldiers of the 14th Regiment in Yeosu refused orders to suppress the Jeju 4·3 Uprising and instead rebelled, leading to months of brutal counter-guerrilla operations in the Jirisan region. Thousands of civilians—particularly in the mountainous Gurye area—were caught in the crossfire: looted by mountainside rebel forces at night, arrested or executed by government troops by day. Hundreds of villages were forcibly relocated and many civilians died in mass executions or under torture. ihalla.com
More than 75 years later, surviving families and heirs continue to seek recognition, retrials, and compensation for state violence. Some court verdicts in recent years have acquitted victims and awarded criminal compensation for wrongful prosecution and state misconduct.
The new crisis: victims suing their lawyers
Rather than simply await justice from the state, many families have retained attorneys to pursue compensation claims. According to advocacy groups:
-
One law firm in Seoul, identified as “Attorney A,” has allegedly withheld the bulk of a 720 million won (approx. US$520 000) criminal-compensation award for three victims, paying only ~207 million won to date.
-
Families say they discovered the award only late last year, and despite a written payment guarantee, the remaining funds remain unpaid—with payment repeatedly postponed.
-
Some lawyers representing these cases reportedly demand success fees of 20–30% of compensation—far above the 5.5% typical in other recent cases.
-
Brokers have also approached victims directly, using personal data to solicit lawsuits and further inflate legal costs.
Documentary Memento 1948 Yeosu-Suncheon, which explores the Yeosu-Suncheon Incident (Image courtesy of KBS)
Why this matters – three structural imbalances
-
Legacy injustice meets modern legal system
The original incident occurred when South Korea’s institutional framework was still nascent. Decades of silence, political stigmatisation, and missing records left victims in legal limbo. Now, as compensation flows, the weak regulatory framework around legal counsel means victims may face fresh injustice—not from the state, but from those supposed to represent them. -
Complex compensation structures & vulnerable clients
Compensation awards often involve inheritance, multiple heirs, complex documentation, and court-ordered funds. Many heirs are elderly, geographically remote, or unfamiliar with legal processes. When payment channels through a law firm rather than directly to heirs, transparency is reduced and control shifts away from victims’ families. -
High stakes + low oversight = exploitable situation
These are high-value, emotionally charged cases. Victims have waited lifetimes. Success fees at 20–30% can translate into tens or hundreds of millions of won for lawyers. With limited oversight, the risk of misappropriation or delay is elevated.
What must be done: policy and regulatory fixes
-
Direct award disbursement mechanisms: Allow compensation to be paid directly to verified heirs rather than through law firms’ trust accounts.
-
Capped, transparent legal fees: Introduce clear ceilings or regulated guidance for success fees in state-redress cases to protect vulnerable clients.
-
Mandatory disclosure and auditing: Require attorneys handling these cases to disclose fee agreements, account statements, and payment timelines to clients and oversight bodies.
-
Victim-centered guidance and legal education: Provide clear, accessible guides for victims and families about compensation processes, fee norms, and how to spot high-risk intermediaries.
-
Dedicated oversight for historical incidents: Establish a special unit within the judiciary or state redress agency to monitor legal representation in cases arising from national historical injustice.
Key takeaway
Decades-long efforts for justice following the Yeosu–Suncheon Incident may be undermined—not by another government denial—but by the very legal representatives hired to secure compensation. Without stronger regulation, oversight and victim protections, the line between justice and further exploitation may blur. For Korean society, a historic wound risks being reopened by fresh betrayal.
Jerry M. Kim (jerry_kim@koreabizwire.com)
