Family sues state over police failure in debt-fueled murder — and loses

In May 2024, a man in his 80s attacked a woman in her 50s and her son with a bladed weapon inside an apartment in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Investigators found he had been unable to recover money he had lent to the woman.

The woman died from her injuries, and her son sustained wounds requiring eight weeks of medical treatment. The attacker, identified only as A, was sentenced to 18 years in prison on charges of murder and attempted murder — a sentence that has since been finalized and which he is currently serving.

The victim's family filed a lawsuit arguing that the police officers assigned to the case bore responsibility for the killing. In court, the family contended that A had subjected the victim to "repeated threats, unlawful confinement, trespassing and stalking over five years" and that police had "neglected their duty to protect her." The court, however, rejected the claim.

Judge Lee Seon-hui of the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 912 ruled against the victim's family on Aug. 22 in their damages suit against the state.

According to the facts established by the court, A lent the victim, identified as B, tens of billions of won around 2008. By 2013, the debt had grown to 4.7 billion won ($3.43 million). A had won a civil judgment against B but was never repaid, as B held no assets in her own name. Up until the day of the attack, A was still paying substantial interest to financial institutions.

From 2019 until just before the killing in 2024, A visited B more than 10 times to demand repayment. He repeatedly showed up at her home carrying a bladed weapon or forced his way into her vehicle. On one occasion, he broke into her residence, confined her for two hours and threatened to kill her if he did not receive payment by a specific date.

Police referred A's case to prosecutors on charges including aggravated intimidation, assault causing injury, trespassing and unlawful confinement. While the investigation was still under way, however, A went to B's home and carried out the murder and attempted murder.

A's 18-year sentence was finalized by the Supreme Court in May last year, after being upheld through the first and second trials. The criminal court, in its sentencing remarks, said A "committed the crime while pressing for repayment of a debt of 4.7 billion won that he had been unable to recover," adding that "even if there was anger arising from the debt relationship, committing murder cannot be justified under any circumstances."

The victim's family filed a lawsuit against the state in December 2024, seeking 250 million won on the grounds that "the officers in charge neglected their duties and acted unlawfully, causing the victim's death."

During the trial, the family argued that A had engaged in "continuous threats, unlawful confinement, trespassing and stalking from 2019 through 2024," and that from March 2024 onward "there was a risk of an imminent and serious threat to the victim's life and physical safety, creating a duty for the officers in charge to protect her."

The family went on to say that police had "failed to open a case on the stalking conduct and instead simply sent A home, declined to refer the case for prosecution, or downgraded the charges," and had "taken only passive protective measures rather than active ones, neglecting their obligations either intentionally or negligently."

The court dismissed all of the family's claims. It found that police had taken appropriate measures within realistic limits — including targeted patrols near the victim's home, providing a smartwatch, proposing the installation of closed-circuit television cameras, applying additional charges and giving the victim an officer's personal mobile phone number.

The court said it "cannot conclude that the measures taken by the officers in charge were so grossly unreasonable as to have lost objective justification based solely on the circumstances the family has alleged."

The family argued that police had failed to implement protective measures under the Stalking Punishment Act, but the court noted that protective measures police had applied for had previously been rejected by both a court and prosecutors. It added that up to that point A and the victim had never come face to face — he had only been seen loitering near her residence — and that it was difficult to find the failure to impose such measures unlawful.

The court further noted that police had proposed targeted patrols near the victim's home, provided a smartwatch and offered to install CCTV cameras, but that the victim had returned the smartwatch early and refused the CCTV installation on privacy grounds.

In addition, the court said the assigned officer had given the victim his personal mobile phone number and told her to contact him whenever she encountered A — and that the victim had in fact used that number to report an incident.

The family also argued that police should have opened a case against A on additional charges including violation of the Stalking Punishment Act. The court said this appeared to reflect concern that doing so might cause A to harbor retaliatory feelings toward the victim, and that it seemed to take into account that A had no prior convictions under the Stalking Punishment Act and was over 80 years old and of slight build.

The court acknowledged that A "appeared to pose a latent risk of harm to the victim at the time," but said it was "difficult to conclude that this was a situation requiring protective measures to be put in place," and that it was equally "difficult to find that police could have foreseen this murder."

Taking all of these circumstances together, the court concluded that "the officers in charge are recognized as having performed their duties by taking appropriate measures within the limits of their human and material capacity," and that since their conduct "cannot be seen as having been so grossly unreasonable as to have lost objective justification at the time of the investigation, it cannot be assessed as unlawful after the fact simply because a murder occurred."

Kim Min-jeong, an attorney at law firm Robery who represented the police, said she "sincerely hopes this ruling in our favor will serve as an occasion for the hard work of detectives and investigators who quietly dedicate themselves in the field to be fully recognized."

She added that "the officer in charge provided the victim with his personal mobile phone number and maintained contact around the clock," and that "his wholehearted efforts to protect the victim — including building a case for additional charges — appear to have been recognized."

The ruling has not yet been finalized. The victim's family has appealed the first-instance decision, and the case is currently pending before Seoul High Court.