What does this restitution-order calculator compare?
A person who lost money to fraud or paid for treatment following an injury may need to consider both criminal proceedings and compensation.
Filing a criminal complaint, or obtaining a conviction, does not automatically put the lost money back into a bank account.
Under Korean law, a victim or heir can seek a restitution order in certain criminal trials, making it useful to check this procedure before starting a separate civil lawsuit.
This calculator compares restitution alone, a direct civil lawsuit, and restitution followed by a civil lawsuit only after full dismissal of the restitution application.
It places a common unpaid claim, actual preparation costs and your collection assumptions on the same basis.
The outputs are probability-weighted planning amounts under Korean rules for 2026, not court statistics, a prediction of your case, or legal advice.
An application without a stamp fee can still require personal preparation, optional counsel and subsequent enforcement spending.
When this comparison can help
- Reconciling fraud transfers with partial repayments to identify the unpaid balance
- Separating supported treatment expenses and claimed non-pecuniary damages before a consultation
- Checking the application window during a first-instance or appeal trial
- Budgeting for a separate civil claim if the restitution application is fully dismissed
Check the charged provision, not only the incident label
Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings concerns a conviction for a listed offense in a first-instance or second-instance criminal trial.
The interface separates fraud under Criminal Act Chapter 39, embezzlement and breach of trust under Chapter 40, theft and robbery under Chapter 38, property damage under Chapter 42, and bodily injury under Article 257(1).
Check the actual indictment and applicable provisions: the offense originally reported in a complaint may differ from the charge tried by the court.
Other listed offenses
The list also covers Articles 258(1) and (2), the specified parts of 258-2, Article 259(1), Article 262 excluding injury or death from violence against an ascendant, Chapter 26, and Chapter 32 excluding Article 304.
Relevant aggravated offenses and punishable attempts are included as specified in the statute.
Separately check Sexual Violence Punishment Act Articles 10–14, 14-2, 14-3 and 15, with Article 15 excluding attempts under Articles 3–9, and child/youth sexual-protection legislation Articles 11, 12, 14 and 15-2.
Select another listed offense only after checking the exact provision and exclusions; a broad sexual-offense label is insufficient.
Unlisted offenses and agreed damages
Simple assault, defamation and insult are not automatically classified as listed offenses by this tool.
Article 25(2), however, permits orders for damages agreed between the defendant and victim, including in cases involving other offenses.
If you use this agreed-amount route, allocate only the damages within that agreement to the input fields and check the agreement, its scope and the outstanding balance.
Application timing and existing proceedings come first
Under Article 26(1), an application may be made to the court handling the case until arguments close in the first-instance or second-instance trial.
Knowing the next hearing or sentencing date is not enough: confirm whether arguments have already closed.
An investigation is a preparation stage, and summary-order proceedings are distinct from the criminal trial used for this application.
If first-instance arguments have closed, the calculator does not display the route as currently available; check whether an appeal trial later becomes pending with arguments still open.
A civil claim for the same damage may bar the application
Article 26(7) prevents a restitution application while a damages claim for the same harm from the criminal conduct is pending before a court through another procedure.
Starting both procedures is therefore not automatically an available strategy.
Check the subject and scope of the existing claim and its procedural status; this calculator does not instruct you to withdraw an existing case.
If the same restitution application has already been dismissed or partly granted, review Article 32(4), which limits applicant challenges and repeated identical applications.
An application identifies the case number, case name, court, applicant and defendant information, compensation sought and amount, with a signature or seal and copies for each defendant.
Supporting documents may be attached, and a victim appearing as a witness may apply orally in court under the statutory procedure.
This calculator prepares a comparison for review; it neither generates nor files the application.
Why the amount and liability checks matter
Article 25(3) bars an order where the victim’s name or address is unclear, the damage amount is not specified, or the existence or extent of the defendant’s compensation liability is unclear.
A significant risk of delaying the criminal trial, or other unsuitability for handling compensation in that procedure, is also relevant.
This is more precise than assuming that any disagreement necessarily means dismissal.
Completing the four checkboxes records your own review, not a court finding.
Match transfer records, contracts, treatment receipts, agreements and repayment records to the amounts they support.
Where defendants have different responsibilities or allocation of the loss is uncertain, clarify the claim instead of entering the same loss multiple times.
The number of documents or an asset-information checkbox is not converted into a numerical dismissal risk.
Understanding the damage, costs and assumptions
Unpaid common claim
Add direct property damage, treatment expenses and claimed non-pecuniary damages, then subtract payments actually received.
Non-pecuniary damages are an entered claim assumption, not an automatic case-law valuation.
Do not deduct an unpaid settlement promise or enter the same treatment expense in two fields.
Payments exceeding the damage total trigger an error; a fully paid balance pauses the recovery comparison.
Restitution spending
Article 26 exempts the application from stamps, and Article 35 generally places procedural costs on the state unless a particular person is assigned those costs.
Personal document and travel preparation, optional lawyer fees and later enforcement attempts still need separate budgeting.
Enforcement spending is incurred in a granted case under this model, so a collection share of zero does not erase that cost.
Civil spending
Civil stamps, the service-of-process deposit, counsel and other preparation are upfront costs.
Enter final VAT-inclusive fees; the calculator does not add VAT again.
Confirm the actual service deposit for the case instead of assuming a universal postage rate, number of parties or number of service rounds.
Outcome and collection are separate
The grant or win assumption concerns a favorable decision for the full compared balance.
The collection share is the fraction actually received in cash if that favorable result occurs.
A fully dismissed restitution case may have different civil prospects, so its subsequent civil win and collection assumptions are separate.
Initial percentages are zero; the optional fictional example is not a recommended rate or empirical statistic.
Civil stamps and net-recovery formulas
The default stamp reference uses Article 2 of the Civil Litigation, etc. Stamp Act for a first-instance property complaint filed on paper.
It simplifies the value of the action to the common unpaid balance; use a court-confirmed actual amount if other claims or valuation rules change that value.
Electronic filing or fee relief should likewise use a confirmed amount entered through the override.
Article 2 first-instance paper-filing stamp formulas by claim value| Claim value | Formula, KRW |
|---|
| Below KRW 10 million | Value × 0.5% |
| KRW 10 million to below 100 million | Value × 0.45% + 5,000 |
| KRW 100 million to below 1 billion | Value × 0.4% + 55,000 |
| KRW 1 billion or more | Value × 0.35% + 555,000 |
The minimum calculated stamp is KRW 1,000; amounts of at least KRW 1,000 are rounded down by discarding amounts below KRW 100.
A zero claim shows zero stamps here because the model assumes no complaint is brought, not because the law creates an exception to its minimum.
Probability-weighted cash flow
- Restitution only = claim × grant assumption × collection share − restitution upfront costs − grant assumption × restitution enforcement costs
- Direct civil = claim × civil win assumption × collection share − civil upfront costs − civil win assumption × civil enforcement costs
- Restitution first = restitution-only net + (1 − grant assumption) × civil net conditional on full dismissal
The civil fallback uses its separately entered win and collection assumptions and the same civil cost quote.
It adds civil spending and collection only in the full-dismissal branch, avoiding recovery of the same damage twice.
Negative results remain visible as costs exceeding collection; an arithmetic advantage is not a recommendation to file.
Worked fictional example: KRW 10 million loss, 1 million repaid
Direct property loss of KRW 10,000,000 less KRW 1,000,000 received leaves a compared claim of KRW 9,000,000.
Assume an 80% full restitution grant, 60% collection if granted, KRW 20,000 preparation, no optional counsel fee and KRW 100,000 enforcement cost if granted.
For direct civil proceedings assume a 90% full win, 60% collection, stamps of KRW 45,000, service deposit of KRW 120,000, counsel of KRW 1,000,000 and other preparation of KRW 30,000.
Civil upfront costs are KRW 1,195,000, with KRW 100,000 enforcement spending if won.
After full restitution dismissal, separately assume a 70% civil win and 40% collection if won.
Restitution only
KRW 4,220,000
Weighted collection of KRW 4,320,000 less weighted costs of KRW 100,000.
Direct civil
KRW 3,575,000
Weighted collection of KRW 4,860,000 less weighted costs of KRW 1,285,000.
Restitution first
KRW 4,471,000
Weighted collection of KRW 4,824,000 less weighted costs of KRW 353,000.
If full dismissal actually occurs, the victim has already spent KRW 20,000 and needs another KRW 1,195,000 upfront for civil proceedings.
Conditional on that dismissal, the probability-weighted net for the whole route is KRW 1,235,000.
This conditional amount differs from the hybrid expectation calculated before the restitution outcome is known.
All example costs and percentages are fictional teaching inputs, not market quotes or the prospects of your claim.
A practical sequence from comparison to preparation
- Check the charged provisions, case number, court and whether arguments have closed; complete the procedural inputs first.
- Match damage categories to evidence and deduct only payments actually received.
- Replace costs with confirmed quotes and record the reasoning behind your grant and collection assumptions.
- If assets are uncertain, also test zero collection and inspect the fixed 0 / 25 / 50 / 75 / 100% grant sensitivity levels.
- Print or save the inputs and results as a PDF for procedural checking or a lawyer consultation, then prepare the application, defendant copies and supporting documents.
A favorable comparison cannot preserve a missed application window.
Instead of increasing assumptions to obtain a preferred result, identify uncertain assets and disputed amounts first.
Keep both routes on a common damage scope: broader civil claims cannot be directly compared with a narrower restitution claim without changing the model.
The calculator does not value delay, predict payment dates or investigate assets.
Frequently asked questions
Does a stamp exemption make the procedure entirely free?
Application stamps are exempt and procedural costs are generally state-funded, but personal preparation, optional counsel and later enforcement attempts need separate checking.
Does an order immediately produce payment?
Under Article 34(1), a certified conviction judgment containing a final restitution order or an order with provisional execution has the same effect as an enforceable civil judgment for compulsory execution.
Cash collection still depends on payment or enforceable assets, which is why the model uses a separate collection share.
Does full dismissal prevent a civil lawsuit?
Article 32(4) restricts applicant challenges and repetition of the same restitution application.
A separate civil claim needs its own review of subject matter, limitation and evidence; the calculator shows its spending as a conditional fallback.
What about a partial grant or an unpaid granted award?
The model simplifies outcomes to full grant or full dismissal and does not automatically model partial grants.
Under Article 34(2), the amount finally granted cannot be claimed again through another procedure; nonpayment of that award is a separate enforcement issue.
Could counsel fees or service deposits be reimbursed later?
Unused-deposit refunds and court cost allocation need case-specific checking.
Neither is automatically deducted from upfront spending here; opposing-party costs, time discounting, late interest and lost earnings are also excluded.
Do completed checkboxes guarantee eligibility or recovery?
They record your inputs only.
Admissibility, conviction, liability, award amount, assets and actual collection remain matters for court assessment and case-specific evidence.
Official sources and update dates
Checked directly through the National Law Information OPEN API on 2026-09-06: the current Special Litigation Act, Law ID 001215, MST 286417, effective 2026-06-02; and its Rules, ID 005898, MST 288353, effective 2026-07-29.
The stamp reference uses Article 2 of the Civil Litigation Stamp Act, ID 001195, MST 258671, effective 2025-03-01.
Recheck listed offenses, application timing and cost provisions after amendments, and replace amounts if the actual claim valuation, filing method or quotes change.
Turn the comparison into a document checklist
Confirm the case number and closure of arguments, then connect the unpaid damage breakdown to the supporting-document list.
Use related tools to separate civil and enforcement costs, and compare those estimates with actual court instructions and quotes.