Family of Navy officer who died by suicide loses damages suit against superior

Officer took his own life while serving as lead investigator in missing-pistol case

Family alleged superior abused authority to force reassignment; court rejects claim

Court rules posting to unwanted position 'fairly common' in military service

A suicide note left by Lt. Cmdr. A, commander of the Navy's 5th Regional Investigation Unit, who was found dead in April 2022. [Captured from YouTube channel JTBC]

The family of a Navy lieutenant commander who died by suicide after leaving a note describing unbearable work pressure has lost a damages lawsuit against the superior they blamed for his death. The family argued the superior had abused his authority by forcing a reassignment that overwhelmed the officer, but the court found the posting was an unavoidable consequence of routine rotation policy.

Judge Kang Wan-su of the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 50 ruled against the bereaved family on May 13, dismissing their 50 million won (approximately $32,800) damages claim against Col. B, who at the time served as commander of the military police investigation unit and was the direct superior of the late Lt. Cmdr. A. The court also ordered the family to bear litigation costs.

Lt. Cmdr. A, who commanded the Navy's 5th Regional Investigation Unit, was found dead in April 2022. In his note, he wrote: "I am so worn out. I have no strength left to hold on … I wonder whose fault this is — did B do this to me?" He added that "every day since the concurrent posting has been unbearable" and that he did not want to remember the person who had made his life so difficult.

Until early 2022, Lt. Cmdr. A had served as a unit commander under the Navy investigation corps. Beginning in April, however, he was given the additional role of regional investigation unit commander — the officer responsible for leading the probe into the "fast-boat pistol disappearance case," in which three handguns went missing from a Chamsuri-class patrol boat. The case had drawn public attention, and the Navy had pledged a thorough investigation.

The family said the officer had been suddenly saddled with a case his predecessor had failed to resolve, causing him extreme stress. They said the excessive workload from what they described as an unreasonable personnel decision caused him to lose 10 kilograms in two months, and that he had been prescribed sleeping medication for insomnia. They added that until just before his death, he had repeatedly said he was struggling because Col. B was pressuring him despite a lack of progress in the investigation, and that he had come into the office to prepare a briefing report when he died.

The Ministry of National Defense's investigation bureau launched a probe into Lt. Cmdr. A's death and booked Col. B on charges of abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights.

Col. B was indicted and stood trial in July 2023, but was acquitted at the first trial in June 2024. Prosecutors appealed, but the not-guilty verdict was upheld on appeal and later confirmed by the Supreme Court. He had also been referred to disciplinary proceedings on the same charges in September 2023, but was cleared of wrongdoing.

The family had filed the civil damages suit against Col. B in February 2023. The first-instance ruling against them came roughly three years and three months later.

During the trial, the family argued that Col. B had unilaterally engineered the reassignment through an abuse of authority, forcing the late officer to shoulder an excessive workload and suffer severe stress. They further claimed Col. B had compounded the pressure by repeatedly demanding investigative results and pushing for progress reports. They sought 50 million won in compensation for emotional distress.

The court rejected the family's arguments.

The judge found that Col. B's role in the reassignment had been effectively compelled by a rotation order issued by the Navy chief of staff at the time, and did not constitute an abuse of authority.

The court also noted that Col. B had given the late officer considerable opportunity to express his views during the reassignment process, and that the officer had not voiced objections to the posting. The judge said no evidence of coercion or abuse of authority was found in any of the communications reviewed.

The court added that Col. B's encouragement of the investigation and his receipt of progress reports appeared to be a natural part of the chain of command, and noted that Col. B had faced neither criminal punishment nor disciplinary action in connection with the case.

The court said it was "unrealistic to expect that a military personnel decision would fully reflect the wishes of the individual concerned," and that being assigned to an unwanted post or taking on a position with a heavy workload was "fairly common" in military service.

The judge concluded that there was no evidence Col. B had acted with improper intent to disadvantage the late officer or had deliberately ignored his difficult circumstances, and that the family's claims therefore lacked grounds.

The ruling is not yet final. The family filed an appeal on May 27, and the case is now pending before the Seoul High Court.

Separately from the civil suit, Lt. Cmdr. A was officially recognized as having died in the line of duty. His family is receiving a death benefit and a survivor's pension.

notstrong@heraldcorp.com