5.18민주화운동의 극적 형상화에 대한 고찰 -마당극에 나타난 반미의식을 중심으로-

김태희 한국드라마학회 2024 드라마연구 Vol.- No.73

1980년대를 규정하는 키워드 중에서 빼놓을 수 없는 키워드가 반미주의다. 5,18민주화운동으로 촉발된 반미주의는 감정적 차원의 반미를 벗어나 민주화운동의 국면을 변화시키는 주요한 변인으로 작용했다. 이는 곧 민주화운동의 주체들로 하여금 새로운 역사적 주체로서의 민중을 재발견하게 했고 주권과 자주성의 문제를 고민하게 했던 것이다. 5.18민주화운동과 관련된 마당극 작품에는 이러한 변화의 과정이 담겨 있다. 5.18민주화운동 직후에 광주에서 공연된 <호랑이놀이>는 광주 시민들의 희생에 미국의 책임이 있음을 고전 <호질>에 기대어 우화적으로 드러내고 있는 작품이다. 과거로 거슬러 올라가 개항기부터 시작되는 외세의 침탈과 이에 맞서는 반외세 운동의 역사적 흐름 속에 5.18민주화운동과 반미의식을 기입함으로써 ‘절대적 우방’이었던 미국의 위상 변화를 예고하고 있다. 한편 5.18민주화운동의 참상을 접한 대학생들은 미국 문화원 방화사건과 같이 파급력 큰 반미운동을 전개하는 한편 자신들의 운동 역사를 되돌아보고 진영을 새롭게 구축하기 시작했다. 이에 따라 대학생들의 대리집회를 겸했던 탈춤반, 연극반의 학내 공연에서는 정부와 외세에 대한 수위 높은 비판이 이루어졌다. 무엇보다 작품 속 ‘민중’은 5.18민주화운동을 계승할 존재로 강조되며 미국을 비롯한 압제자와의 역사적 대결을 펼쳐야 하는 임무를 부여 받는다. 분단된 국가에서 주체성의 문제를 고민하는 일은 필연적으로 통일에 대한 논의로 귀결될 수밖에 없다. 다만 1960년대 이후의 통일 논의가 빈번하게 안보의 문제로 축소되고 좌절되는 과정을 반복해왔다면, 1980년대의 ‘민중’은 통일 논의에 있어서도 변화를 가져왔다. 이러한 순간을 엿보게 해주는 것이 1988년 제1회 민족극한마당에서 공연된 <일어서는 사람들>이었다. 작품의 주된 문제 의식, 곧 미국이 광주 시민들의 희생을 방조했으며 군부 세력의 독재를 용인해주었다는 비판은 앞 시대의 그것과 동일하지만, 등장인물들이 판문점 회담과 회담 주체의 문제를 거론할 때 작품은 주권과 자주성의 문제로 도약한다. 작품 속 인물들이 한국 대신 판문점 회담의 대표자로 나선 미국을 비판할 때, 미국은 한반도의 주권을 침해하고 통일을 방해하는 가장 큰 적으로 부각된다. 이는 1987년 6월 항쟁 이후 고조된 민중적 활력이 통일에 대한 논의를 안보의 프레임 바깥으로 끌어냈던 순간이기도 했다. Among the keywords defining the 1980s, anti-Americanism is an indispensable keyword. Anti-Americanism triggered by the May 18 Democratization Movement served as a major variable that changed the phase of the democratization movement, away from anti-Americanism at the emotional level. This led the subjects of the democratization movement to rediscover the people as the subject of new history and to think about the issues of sovereignty and independence. The Madanggeuk work related to the May 18 Democratization Movement contained the process of this change. <Tiger Play>, performed in Gwangju immediately after the 5.18 Democratization Movement, was a work that allegorically revealed that the United States was responsible for the sacrifice of Gwangju citizens using the classic <hojil>. It foretells the change in the status of the United States throughout the 1980s by writing the 5.18 Democratization Movement and anti-American consciousness amid the historical trend of the foreign invasion and anti-foreign movement that began from the opening period. Upon hearing the news of the 5.18 Democratization Movement, university students began to look back on the history of their movement while developing anti-American movements such as the arson attack at the American Cultural Center. Above all, in <Madanggeuk Hong Dong-ji> and <May dance> the people were emphasized as beings to inherit the 5.18 Democratization Movement. Unlike the people in <Tiger Play> who only reminded the victims of Gwangju citizens, in <Madanggeuk Hong Dong-ji> and <May dance>, the people faced off against oppressors including the United States. It is the people who become the subject of historical confrontation at the front line of the democratization movement. Considering the issue of subjectivity in a divided country inevitably leads to a discussion of unification. However, since the 1960s, discussions on unification have frequently been reduced and frustrated by security issues. However, the discussion on unification has also changed since the 1980s, and <People standing up> performed at the 1st National Theater Hanmadang in 1988 showed this moment. The criticism that the United States assisted in the sacrifices of Gwangju citizens and that it was allowing the dictatorship of military forces is the same as in the previous era, but when the characters mentioned the Panmunjom talks and the subject of the talks, the work leapt to the issue of sovereignty and independence. The fact that the United States represents Korea instead of Korea at the Panmunjom talks means that Korea's sovereignty is violated, and the United States has now emerged as the biggest enemy of the division issue. This was the moment when the discussion on unification was brought out of the security frame due to the rising popular vitality following the June 1987 uprising.

5월행사와 주체로 본 ‘5월운동’ 연구-연구 현황, 한계 그리고 방향-

정호기 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2004 민주주의와 인권 Vol.4 No.2

The 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising became symbolic event of representing movement for democratization in Korea. This resulted memorial struggle performed since May 1980, namely the May Movement. The May Movements’ concept have been settled down through researches, but has a little difference in legal and academic definition. This Paper analyzes researches on the Memorial Event for the 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising that were the most visible collective behaviors and subjects leaded to the May Movement. The Memorial Event for the 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising were carried out not only around Gwangju and Chonnam areas as well as all over the country. But most researches on the Memorial Event for the 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising were localized memorial event in Gwangju. Researches on the Memorial Event for the 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising were considered as processes of progression on that time and were handled mainly arguments toward identity as well as direction. Researches in relation to Subject of the May Movement analyzed the origin, a special quality and behavior on related organization. Therefore, researches in relation to subject of the May Movement were not formated yet. For revitalizing the researches in relation to the May Movement, it is needed to take an interest in the followings: First, it must expand largely spatial and temporal territories of researches. Secondly, it has to analyze Memorial Struggle and effect of institutionalization on program of judging the past. Thirdly, reilluminate, research and study widely on the subject of the May Movement.

5·18민주화운동과 한국기독교교회협의회

손승호(Son Seung-Ho) 한국기독교역사연구소 2020 한국기독교와 역사 Vol.0 No.53

5·18민주화운동이 발생한 1980년은 교회협 인권위원회가 위축되어 있던 시기였다. 금요기도회 「인권소식」발행, 법률구조활동 등이 모두 중지되어 있었기 때문이다. 그런 상황에서 5·18민주화운동이 발생하자 교회협 인권위원회는 5월 26일 교회와사회위원회와 연석 회의, 전두환과의 면담, 대책위원회의 구성이라는 세 가지 대책을 마련하였다. 그러나 연석회의는 당국의 집회 금지로 무산되었고, 전두환과의 면담은 씁쓸한 뒷맛을 남겼으며, 대책위원회의 진상조사 결과는 실행위원회에서 보고조차 하지 못했다. 회의법을 근거로 이 보고를 막았던 강원용은 이후 전두환의 국정 자문위원이 되었고 여론의 비판에 직면하게 되었다. 내외의 장벽에 걸린 초기 대응은 결국 중요한 시기를 놓치고 실패하게 되었다 인권위원회 관계자들조차 이를 ’역사의 오점’이라 평가하고 있다. 이후 1984년 6월에 개최된 인권문제전국협의회에서 인권위원회에 “광주사태 진상조사위원회 구성”을 건의하게 되면서 진상조사 사업이 시작되었다. 이 사업은 3권으로 구성된 『1980년대 민주화운동』의 출간으로 마무리되었다. 『1980년대 민주화운동』은 일지, 당대 내외신의 보도 와 각종 성명서, 공판기록 등을 담고 있으며 5·18민주화운동의 기초 자료로서 활용되어 왔다. 또한 교회협 자체가 5·18민주화운동 진상규명운동의 전면에 나서지는 못했지만 인권위원회의 전위원장들인 박형규와 조남기를 공동의장으로 조직된 ‘전국기독자민주쟁취대회’는 1985년 4월 26일 ‘5월광주민중항쟁기념위원회’를 구성하고 진상규명을 위해 노력하였다. 교회협이 5·18민주화운동을 주제로 발표한 유일한 성명서인 “광주 의거 주년에 즈음한 성명서”(1985)는 당시의 재야·청년학생·유가족들 이 가지고 있던 5·18민주화운동에 대한 인식과 교회협의 인식이 크게 다르지 않았음을 보여주고 있다. The year 1980 when the May 18 Democratization Movement took place was a time when the Human Rights Committee of the National Council of Churches in Korea was shrinking. This is because “Friday prayer meetings, “human rights news” and legal rescue activities were all suspended. In the wake of the May 18 Democratization Movement, the Human Rights Committee of the National Council of Churches in Korea prepared three measures on May 26, a joint meeting with the Church and Society Committee, a meeting with Chun Doo-hwan, and the formation of a countermeasure committee. However, the joint meeting was canceled due to the authorities’ ban on assembly, and the meeting with Chun Doo-hwan left a bitter aftertaste, and the results of the task force’s fact-finding efforts were not even reported to the executive committee. Kang Wong-yong, who blocked the report based on the meeting law, later became Chun Doo-hwan’s advisor for state affairs and faced public criticism. The initial response to the internal and external barriers ended up missing an important time frame and failing. Even human rights committee officials consider it a “blot of history.” Afterwards, the fact-finding project began when the National Council on Human Rights in June 1984 proposed to the Human Rights Commission to form a ‘fact-finding committee on the Gwangju incident.’ The project was completed with the publication of the three-volume “Democratic Movement of the 1980s.” The “Democratic Movement of the 1980s” contains diaries, reports from domestic and foreign media of the time, various statements, and records of trial, and has been used as basic materials for the May 18 Democratization Movement. In addition, although the church association itself did not come to the forefront of the May 18 Democratization Movement, the National Christian Democratic Convention, organized by Park Hyung-kyu and Cho Nam-ki, former chairmen of the Human Rights Committee, formed the “National Christian Democratic Convention” on April 26, 1985 and made efforts to find out the truth. In addition, the only statement issued by the National Council of Churches in Korea on the theme of the May 18 Democratization Movement, “A Statement Around the Fifth Anniversary of Gwangju Uprising,” shows that the perception of the May 18 Democratization Movement held by opposition parties, youth students and bereaved families at the time was not much different.

5·18민주화운동에 관한 고교 역사교과서의 서술과 학생의 인식

이연선 ( Lee Yeon-sun ) 순천대학교 인문학술원 2020 인문학술 Vol.5 No.-

The May 18 Democratic Movement has been an indicator for the people and the nation of Korea that have been having aspirations of democracy. Since this historic value of the Movement has been recognized worldwide, The May 18 Democratic Uprising was designated as a UNESCO Memory of the World in 2011, which was extremely rare for a piece of modern Korean history. As the uprising received a huge credit for its historical value, it was necessary for Korean students to be informed with proper and extensive education. Therefore, this dissertation discusses how The May 18 Uprising has been taught in history classes and lessons at secondary schools. Since the study of the movement has been continued among the 518 Movement activist group, research varied from the collection of pictures and documents to human rights. The study has been expanded to include the areas of traumatic experiences, the problem of memory, and the problem of generational succession On one hand, research on the education of the May 18 movement is hard to find. But the movement as a topic of learning and teaching is only discussed for six different high schools “Korean Modern and Contemporary History Textbook” and “Alternative Textbook”, which compares and analyzes the descriptions of the movement in different textbooks. Furthermore, it is hard to find any study on structure of recognition of students regarding the May 18 democratic movement. The quantity and quality of studies on this topic are quite insufficient. This dissertation examined research on how students are educated on the May 18 Movement and how the students view the uprising by laying the foundation for the study of education on the movement. The textbook description was analyzed from the Period of 5th Educational Course which was the first time for the democracy to be mentioned up until the Period of 7th Educational Course. Also included in the research were the recent awareness and problems presented by the description of the May 18 Democratic Movement in current textbooks based on the statements of the Uprising and directions of changes, quantity and the use of documents. In order to examine the awareness of Korean students of the Movement, a survey of the secondary students who studied the Movement in their curriculum was conducted and the results organized. The impact of Korean secondary education on the education of the Democratic Movement was studied from middle school students to highschool students. Also becuase the regionally different awareness of the Uprising could be the reason for the education, the result of the survey is divided into two groups; Gwang-ju and outside of Gwang-ju. The description of the May 18 Democratic Movement in public education textbooks has been gradually improved in terms of quantity and quality. The perspective of the description of the Movement has been transformed from the process of protests against Chun Do-hwan’s military regime to a huge wave of South Korean democracy. Also the description has been rich in quality. Through survey, the difference of perspectives of middle school and high school students was examined based on the regional deviation; Gwang-ju and outside of Gwang-ju. The results were organized by the level of educational opportunity and teaching-learning style. The group of high school students had more knowledge of the Movement and thought of it more positively than the group of middle school students, a result of studying history in high school. Regardless of their regions, students had high interest and desire to learn about the Movement and had questions in a variety of areas. On the other hand, public education did not offer enough opportunities or variable teaching-learning methods. The current public education textbooks could not solve the questions students had due to the limited and generally similar descriptions of the Uprising. Since the May 18 Movement is a critical historic event and is still being recognized gradually, it is necessary for public education to provide a balanced and accurate education about the Movement. In order to do so, it needs to have diversified views on how to describe the Uprising and the description should be extended to the historic figures, the issues of victims and the meanings in modern society. Also, various authentic teaching-learning methods need to be studied to imbue a right sense of value and succession to students. The May 18 Democratic Movement is a part of the proud legacy of Korean democracy for students to be global citizens and offer a valuable view of history and the world. There should continue to be educational trials and studies of the event for students to inherit and develop the spirit of the Movement. This dissertation goes through the current state of teaching the Movement and points out the problems. There is the hope that the secondary curriculum also focuses more on the Democratic Movement and helps to bring greater awareness of the Movement, teaching-learning methods, the correct description of the issue in textbooks and developing effective teaching materials for students.

5·18민주화운동과 한국교회: 광주지역 교회의 활동, 연구동향, 향후 연구과제를 중심으로

최상도(Choi Sang-Do) 한국기독교역사연구소 2020 한국기독교와 역사 Vol.0 No.53

이 글은 (1)1980년 5월 18-27일 10일간의 5·18민주화운동기간 동안 광주지역 개신교회의 주요 활동에 대한 개신교의 자료수집과 연구동향을 살피고 (2)새롭게 수집되고 발견된 자료를 통해 교회의 활동을 실증한 후, (3)마지막으로 향후 개신교의 5․18민주화운동에 관한 연구과제와 방향을 제시한다. 개신교회의 5·18민주화운동에 대한 자료와 연구는 40년이 지났지만 거의 공백에 가깝다 하지만 실제로 광주지역 교회는 5·18민주화운동 기간 동안 공적 예배를 통해 계엄군의 폭력을 비판하고, 성서에 기초하여 민주시민으로써의 교인들의 행동을 요청했고 항쟁하는 학생 시민들의 피신처로, 시민학생 조직의 활동의 공간으로도 일부 제공되었다. 특히 조직적으로 교파를 초월하여 수습과 구호 조직을 결성하여 광주 시민들을 적극 도왔다. 또한 교회의 전국 조직 및 연합기관들을 통해 에큐메니컬 관계를 통해 군부에 의해 고립된 광주의 실상을 전국에 그리고 해외에 알렸다. 이같이 5·18민주화운동에 대한 교회의 실제 활동과 기록 간에 불균형이 드러났다. 그러기에 일차로 한국교회는 5·18민주화운동에 대한 자료의 축적을 최우선 과제로 삼고 기록을 남길 수 없었던 당시의 상황을 고려하여 구술사연구를 통한 증언 채록을 시급하게 진행해야 한다. 이를 통하여 한국교회는 5·18민주화운동에 대한 기독교 아카이브를 구축하여 향후 연구에 토대를 마련해야 한다. This study (1)investigates the Korean Protestant Church’s trends of data collection and researches on the main activities of Protestant churches in Gwangju during the ten days of May 18 Democratization Movement, 18-27 May 1980, (2)demonstrates activities of the Church through newly collected and discovered materials, and lastly (3)presents research tasks and directions on the May 18 Democratization Movement for the Korean Protestant Church. The data collection and research works from the Protestant Church in Korea on the May 18 Democratization Movement have been around for 40 years, but are close to a vacuum. In fact, however, during the May 18 Democratic Movement, churches in Gwangju criticized the violence of martial law forces through public Sunday services and called an action of the church members as democratic citizens based on the Bible, and were partly provided as a shelter for the protesting students and citizens, and as a space for civic student organizations’ activities. In particular, churches actively helped the citizens of Gwangju by forming an pan-denominational coordinating and relief committee. Through the church’s nationwide institutional system, allied Christian bodies, and the ecumenical relationship with churches in the world, the reality of Gwangju isolated by the military was also known throughout the country and abroad. As such, the imbalance between the church’s real activities in May 1980 and the Church’s records and researches on the May 18 Democratization Movement has been revealed. Therefore, the first priority of Protestant Church in Korea is to collect and accumulate data on the May 18 Democratization Movement, and also it is urgent to collect testimony of christians deeply involved in the Movement through oral history methodology, considering the situation in which it was not possible to save the written records about the May 18 Democratization Movement at that time. Through this, the Protestant Church in Korea should establish a Christian Archive of the May 18 Democratization Movement to lay a foundation for future research.

탈진실의 시대, 5・18의 진실을 다시 묻기: 5・18조사위 진상규명 활동에 대한 성찰적 비판

김희송 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2024 민주주의와 인권 Vol.24 No.3

This study examines the results and limitations of The May 18 Democratization Movement Truth Commission’s truth finding activities, focusing on the ex officio investigation report. The May 18 Democratization Movement Truth Commission ended its activities on December 26, 2023, and announced the results of its truth finding activities over the past four years in 17 ex officio investigation reports. The May 18 Democratization Movement Truth Commission announced that 11 of the 17 investigations were able to reveal the truth, and 6 were unable to reveal the truth. They failed to find out the truth about key issues, including the circumstances and responsibility of the shooting, burials, and the attack on the weapons depot. In particular, some of the ex officio investigation reports deny the truth through euphemisms even for the facts that already identified in the past. The biggest problem with The May 18 Democratization Movement Truth Commission investigation report is that it resonates with the allegations of distortion and slander, not the voice of the truth, causing paradoxes of post-truth phenomenon. It is time for reflective criticism of the May 18 Democratization Movement Truth Commission's activities and a new search for finding out the truth after the May 18 Democratization Movement Truth Commission.

1980년대 광주 민중미술에 관한 연구 -5・18민주화운동 이후 광주지역 작가의 작품을 중심으로-

홍윤리 인문사회 21 2019 인문사회 21 Vol.10 No.1

한국민중미술에 대한 연구는 지속적으로 있어 왔지만 한국 민주화운동을 본격적으로 촉발시켰던 5・18민주화운동 이후 참담한 상황을 근경에서 경험하고 이를 작품으로 담았던 광주지역 민중 미술작품들에 대한 연구는 아직 미흡하다. 이번 연구는 1980년 5・18민주화운동 이후 제작된 광주민중미술 작품을 중심으로 1980년대 광주민중미술의 작품 내용과 특징에 대해서 알아보았다. 1980년 5・18민주화운동을 경험한 광주 미술인들은 패배감과 절망감에서 벗어나 한국 민중항쟁의 역사 속에서 5・18민주화운동을 해석했으며 공동체 정신을 시각적으로 보여주었다. 또한 5・18민주화운동의 숭고한 의미를 되새기며 당면한 사회 문제를 드러냈다. 이 연구에서는 1980년 5・18민주화운동을 실제 경험하고 5・18민주화운동의 진상규명과 역사성을 시각매체로 표현한 광주지역 미술인들이 10여 년간 제작한 작품을 조사하여 이들 작품의 형식과 내용의 구체적인 특징을 살펴보았다. 1980년대 광주 민중미술은 한국 민중미술과 맞닿아 있지만 5・18민주화운동에 대한 주제가 대다수를 차지했다. 미술인들은 5・18민주화운동의 사실과 시민들이 겪은 심경을 적극적으로 작품 속에 담았고, 5・18민주화운동을 한국 민중항쟁의 역사로 해석했으며, 미술의 실천적 역할을 강조하며 미술작품과 함께 진상규명 운동을 전개했다. There have been continuous studies of Korean Minjoong art, but the study on the art works by the people in Gwangju who experienced the dire situation after the May 18 Democratic Movement, which triggered the full-scale democratic movement in Korea, is still insufficient. The study focused on the works of Gwangju Minjoong Art which were produced after the May 18 Democratic Movement in 1980, and found the contents and characteristics of the works. The artists interpreted the May 18 Democratic Movement in the history of the Korean people's resistance movement, breaking away from defeat and despair and visualized the spirit of the community. It also revealed the social problems facing it, recalling the noble meaning of the May 18 Democratic Movement. The study looked at the specific characteristics of the works by artists who experienced the May 18 Democratic Movement in 1980 and expressed the truth and history of the May 18 Democratic Movement as visual media. Although Gwangju Minjoong Art in the 1980s was closely matched with Korean Minjoong Art art, the theme of the May 18 Movement was mostly composed. Artists actively included the facts of the May 18 Democratic Movement and the feelings of the citizens in their works, interpreted the May 18 Gwangju Democracy Movement as the history of the Korean people’s resistance, emphasized the practical role of art, and launched a truth-finding movement with art works.

5・18피해자의 삶의 위기와 사회적 과제

김희송,추주희 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2023 민주주의와 인권 Vol.23 No.3

The purpose of this study is to clarify the reality of the lives of the victims of the May 18 Democracy Movement through an empirical investigation and to present social issues and tasks. For that purpose, This study analyzed the experiences, perceptions, and socioeconomic conditions of the victims of the May 18 Democratization Movement, focusing on the results of a survey conducted in 2022 among 2,009 merits of the May 18 Democratization Movement. The results showed that the merits of the May 18 Democratization Movement have continuously suffered from physical injuries and illnesses caused by torture, beatings, and other forms of violence during the May 18 Democratization Movement, and they are in a vicious cycle of family dissolution and deteriorating social relationships. In addition, the subjective perception of their social class was found to be very low and their self-esteem was found to be low compared to other national veterans. These findings show that there is an urgent need for social healing of May 18 victims who contributed to the development of Korean democracy and for systematic support policies.

5・18민주화운동 정신적 손해배상소송 -평가와 과제-

민병로 전남대학교 공익인권법센터 2025 인권법평론 Vol.- No.34

5・18피해자들은 보상금등 지급결정에 동의하여 이를 수령하였다는 이유만으로 5・18민주화운동과 관련하여 입은 피해 중 ‘정신적 손해’에 관한 부분도 민사소송법의 규정에 의한 ‘재판상 화해’가 성립된 것으로 간주하는 5・18보상법 제16조 제2항에 의해 더 이상 금전적 배상을 받을 길이 없었다. 그러나 2021. 5. 27. 헌법재판소는 정신적 손해에 대해 적절한 배상이 이루어지지 않은 상태에서 적극적・소극적 손해에 상응하는 보상금등 지급결정에 동의하였다는 사정만으로 정신적 손해에 대한 국가배상청구권마저 금지하는 것은 국가배상청구권에 대한 과도한 제한이라 하여 헌법에 위반된다고 결정하였다. 헌법재판소의 5・18보상법의 ‘재판상 화해’ 조항에 대한 위헌 결정으로 그동안 정신적 손해배상청구의 길이 막혀있던 5・18피해자들에게 소송 구제의 길이 열린 것이다. 본고에서는 5・18민주화운동과 관련하여 피해를 입은 사람들이 피해 보상을 받을 수 있게 된 5・18보상법의 제정 과정과 변천, 보상 현황, 2025년 현재 진행 중인 제8차 보상의 의의와 쟁점, 그리고 5・18정신적 손해배상소송을 가능하게 해준 헌법재판소의 2018년(민주화보상법)과 2021년(5・18보상법)의 ‘재판상 화해’ 조항에 대한 위헌 결정의 의의와 법리를 살펴본다. 나아가 그 뒤 법원에 제기된 5・18정신적 손해배상소송에서 나타난 법원마다 다른 위자료 산정액, 소멸시효의 기산점, 가족들의 위자료 채권 소멸시효 기산점 등의 문제를 검토한다. Victims of the May 18 Democratic Movement (the “Movement”) were unable to receive monetary compensation for ‘psychological damages’ incurred in connection with the Movement due to Article 16-2 of the May 18 Compensation Act. This article provides that ‘judicial conciliation’ under the Civil Procedure Act is deemed established when the victims agree to compensation payments. However, on May 27, 2021, the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that prohibiting claims for state compensation for psychological damages merely because victims agreed to compensation decisions corresponding to direct and in-direct damages without proper redress for psychological damages constituted an excessive restriction on the right to state compensation, thereby violating the Constitution. With the Constitutional Court’s decision declaring the ‘judicial conciliation’ provision of the May 18 Compensation Act unconstitutional, a path for legal remedies for psychological damage claims, which had previously been blocked, was opened for the victims of the May 18 Democratic Movement. This paper examines the legislative history, evolution, and current status of 8th compensation proceedings under the May 18 Compensation Act, which allowed victims of the May 18 Democratic Movement to receive compensation. It also delves into the significance and issues of the ongoing 8th round of compensation as of 2025. Further, it explores the Constitutional Court’s rulings in 2018 (Democratization Compensation Act) and 2021 (May 18 Compensation Act) that declared the ‘judicial conciliation’ provisions unconstitutional, analyzing their legal and societal implications. Additionally, this paper reviews issues raised in subsequent lawsuits for psychological damages related to the May 18 Democratic Movement, including discrepancies in the amounts of damages awarded by courts, the starting point for the statute of limitations, and the starting point of the statute of limitations for family members’ compensation claims.

5·18, ‘진실’의 레짐과 계보학

김봉국 비판사회학회 2020 경제와 사회 Vol.- No.126

This paper argues on the reasons of coexistence of distortion and indifference to ‘May 18’ resides in the horizon of perception and perspective of Korean society that have been watching and talking about the May 18 so far. In particular, this paper asserts the reasons are the (un)conscious consequence of the framework of debates on the ‘truth’ of May 18. The keyword of discourses on May 18, that has been diversified after democratic struggle and triggered researches thereon, was the ‘clarification of truth’. What is problematic with the keyword is that the debates on the axis of truth became constantly structured. One axis that has been the one of basic streams of investigation and researches on May 18 was the struggle to construct the ‘Regime of Truth’ against the ‘Distorted System’ coerced by the ‘New Military Regime’. In this struggle, researchers have been watching and talking about May 18, the democratic struggle, on the standpoint of anti-thesis against the anticommunism and regionalism covered the May 18 by the ruling authority to criticize the anticommunism and regionalism. Thereby, the system of truth, intended for the construction of counter-memories different from official memories introduced by the ruling authority, has been stating the truth of May 18 by anchoring on the framework of anticommunism and regionalism. In other words, the people, practice of democracy, death, and emotion of May 18 has been stated on the framework and in the horizon of perception preoccupied by ruling authority in a way to repeat the languages and logics of the ruling authority. In due courses, the experiences and gestures of May 18 has been acclimated constantly only to be reproduced on the roads guided and allowed by a nation under the flag of ‘democracy’. Thereby, the truth of May 18, restrained by the ‘distortion’, still remains behind the walls of regionalism and generations that prohibits the communication of the truth with people beyond the walls. The ‘Truth of May 18’ has been realigned nationally however the healing of wounds of remaining people is neglected by hiding behind the institutionalized historical rectification. Upon entering the 40th anniversary of May 18, we need to reconstruct another hidden or forgotten ‘Truth of May’ castrated twice via instances of ‘distortion’ and ‘national acknowledgement’. Thus, it is the time to introduce the ‘May 18’ into the history. 본 연구는 오늘날 5·18에 대한 왜곡과 무관심이 병존하게 된 이유가 지금껏 5·18을 바라보고 말해왔던 한국 사회의 인식지평과 시각 자체에 있음을 논한다. 특히 5·18의 ‘진실’을 둘러싼 논쟁의 틀이 (무)의식적으로 파생시킨 결과라고 주장한다. 항쟁 이후 다기한 5·18담론과 연구를 촉발하고 가로질렀던 키워드는 ‘진실규명’이었다. 문제는 이 진실을 축으로 한 논쟁이 일정하게 구조화되었다는 점이다. 그동안 5·18에 대한 조 사와 연구의 근간을 이룬 한 축은 항쟁 당시부터 신군부세력이 강제한 ‘왜곡의 체제’에 맞서 새로운 ‘진실의 체제(regime of truth)’를 구축하는 싸움이었다. 이 투쟁에서 연구 자들은 지배 권력이 덧씌운 반공주의와 지역주의를 비판하기 위해 그 안티테제하에서 항쟁을 바라보고 말해왔다. 이로 인해 지배 권력의 공식기억과는 다른 대항기억을 구축 하고자 했던 진실의 체제 역시 반공주의와 지역주의의 틀에 정박한 채 5월의 진실을 진 술해 왔다. 다시 말해 지배 권력이 선점한 틀과 인식지평 위에서 그 지배의 말과 논리를 반복해 5월의 사람과 실천과 죽음과 감성을 진술했다. 이 과정에서 5월의 몸짓과 경험 은 일정하게 순화되었고 ‘민주주의’라는 깃발 아래 국가가 허용하고 안내한 길 위에서 만 재현되고 말았다. 그 결과 ‘왜곡’에 긴박된 5월의 진실은 그토록 소통하기를 원했던 지역과 세대의 벽을 넘지 못하고 있다. 국가로 정향된 5월의 진실 역시 제도화된 과거 청산에 안주한 채, 남겨진 자들의 상처에 대한 치유를 방기하고 있다. 40주년 이후 ‘왜 곡’과 국가적 ‘인정’이라는 이중의 심급이 거세한 5월의 또 다른 ‘진실들’을 찾고 재구 성해 가야 한다. 이젠 5월을 역사화할 때가 되었다.