Constitutional petition on whether rescue measures were taken at the time of the Sewol ferry disaster rejected

The families of the victims filed a constitutional petition alleging that the government violated the constitution by failing to take swift relief measures at the time of the Sewol ferry disaster, but the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition.
According to a legal source on the 2nd, the Constitutional Court decided to hear the constitutional petition filed by the families of the victims of the Sewol ferry disaster on the 30th of last month.
The court ruled 5-4 in favor of dismissal. Dismissal is a procedure in which a trial is terminated without a ruling on the merits of the case when the claim itself does not meet the requirements set out in the relevant laws and it is inappropriate to do so.
The family members said, "From the day of the accident, when the Sewol began to tilt, until it completely sank, the country had the duty to save the lives of its citizens.
However, the Constitutional Court ruled that "the government's relief measures in relation to the Sewol ferry accident were inappropriate for this incident.
The court ruled that "the arbitration request in this case fell under a case in which there was no interest in protecting rights," and that "the arbitration request in this case fell under a case in which there was no interest in protecting rights."
The Constitutional Court also did not recognize the "exceptional interest in seeking a trial," which is exceptionally granted in cases where constitutional clarification is necessary even if the infringement has already ended.
In relation to this, he said, "The specific content of the relief measures is not a matter of determining whether they are unconstitutional, but rather a matter of interpreting and applying the relevant laws," and "The illegality has already been determined by the courts, and civil and criminal liability has not been established."
However, Judges Kim Ki-young, Moon Hyeon-bae, Lee Mi-seon and Jeong Jeong-mi said, "The ruling in this case is based on the fact that the defendant's claim for a special trial has already been approved, so it is difficult to accept the special trial benefit."
The government's relief measures violated the principle of prohibiting the use of indigenous protection and did not fulfill its obligation to protect the right to life of the victims.
This violates the right of bereaved families to pursue happiness."