미국법상 미성년자 성적 침해에 대한 민사소송의 소멸시효제도

In the case of sexual infringement against a minor, even if the victim muster up the courage to face the memory of past sexual violence and try to heal the wounds through legal remedies after becoming an adult, the civil statute of limitations has expired since the sexual infringement occurred long time ago. There is a problem of not being able to file a lawsuit due to the statute of limitation. In particular, in the case of sexual infringement against minors, in many cases, the perpetrator is a family member, teacher, religious person, etc. The victim, a minor, is economically and emotionally dependent on the perpetrator, so they do not easily think of filing civil lawsuits even as adults. Fortunately, South Korea established Article 766, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Act in 2020, and legislative improvements have been made so that the statute of limitations does not proceed until a minor becomes an adult in the case of sexual infringement. However, despite these good intentions, there are still limits to the relief, so this article will examine the US system. First of all, in the United States, state and federal laws operate different statute of limitations, and since the 1980s, the discovery rule has been applied so that victims can file lawsuits even after a considerable amount of time has elapsed after they become adults. For example, if the victim of a sexual assault is a minor and the victim has not yet discovered the injury after reaching adulthood, from the time he or she discovers the injury and the causal relationship between the injury and the sexual assault Legislative examples such as the requirement to file a claim for damages within four years reflect the discovery principle. However, despite these laws, there are many cases where the requirements are not met, and the relief of victims has not been smoothly carried out. Thus, California and New York State further extended the statute of limitations, and furthermore, through window legislation, even if the statute of limitations had expired, a period of one or two years was allowed to file a civil lawsuit. This legislation provides an opportunity to sue the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's decades of sexual exploitation of minors. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Windows Act is not unconstitutional. While retroactive legislation is “an identifiable injustice”, civil actions based on sexual abuse of minors are rather reasonable in light of the injustice done to the victims. Under these retroactive legislation, some religious organizations are actively raising their own funds for the relief of victims, and are paying settlements on the condition that they do not file a lawsuit against the religious organizations. The basis for such retroactive legislation is that if society has previously borne the cost of damages incurred to the victim, the perpetrator must bear the cost.