Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Doll, Law Office, Attorneys Park Young-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

New Japan Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 6, 2008

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 6, and 3-1, 4-1, 6-1, 6-1, 22-1, 23-1, 25, 47-1, 49 through 53 (including each number), 5-1, 2, 62-1, 2, 71-1, 2, 74 through 78 (including each number), and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 2-1, 2-2, 64-1, 74-2, 74-1, 3-4 and 5-4 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, 6-2, 7-1, and 3-4 of the evidence Nos. 3, 5-4 and 5-4 of the plaintiff as a whole.

A. The plaintiffs' mobilization, forced labor, and returning circumstances

(1) The Plaintiffs were those persons residing in the Republic of Korea, such as Taeyangyang, Boan, Gunsan, etc. from January 1923 to 1929, and the Japanese iron company (hereinafter “former Japanese iron company”) was established on January 1, 1934, and was operating the iron office in the Japanese Marina City, Hata (Tho), Hata (Tho), and Mala (Tho), etc.

(2) The Japanese government enacted and promulgated the National Mobilization Act on April 1, 1938 in order to resolve the shortage of labor force in the production of munitions while taking part in the Japanese War and the Pacific War, and enforced it from May 5 of the same year in Korea. On May 1942, 1942, the Japanese government recruited human resources through the conciliation of officials in each region of the Republic of Korea. From October 194, 194, the Japanese government enacted and promulgated the National Mobilization Act on April 1, 1938 and recruited human resources through the conciliation of officials in each region of the Republic of Korea.

On the other hand, the Steel Control Association, which is a Japanese government-oriented organization that oversees and supervises Japanese steel producers, including the former Japanese iron, was established on April 26, 1941. The Steel Control Association decided to actively expand labor workers in Korea and mobilized labor workers in cooperation with the Japanese government. The former Japanese steel system played a leading role in the Steel Control Association, such as appointing the president of the Steel Control Association to serve as the president of the Steel Control Association.

(3) The former Japanese iron sent a park recruitment advertisement for the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office.

(4) Around September 1943, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 submitted an invitation to the effect that they can find employment in Korea by reporting the above advertisement and acquiring technology. After passing an interview with the recruitment officer of the previous Japanese iron, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 had been engaged in the labor union as the office of the Japanese iron and training team under the direction of the above person in charge.

(5) Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 worked as three bridges for 8 hours a day in the Austria, and only two times in one month were allowed to be sent to only 2 and 3 UNs, and the former Japanese iron is likely to be wasteed upon being paid the full amount of wages, without the consent of Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2, and deposited most of the wages in the old unit in the name of the above plaintiffs, without the consent of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, and kept the savings passbook and the seal in the dormitory. The above plaintiffs were engaged in the labor station where there is a risk of image by inserting coal, such as putting coal into a chemical, mixing with a steel pipe, and removing a coal scrap, and the amount of meals provided was very high. In addition, even if the above plaintiffs escape from the police, they did not want to take care of the above plaintiffs, but did not want to take a dormitory.

(6) During that period, Japan was drafted by force on February 194, and Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 did not receive any amount of money after being drafted. The factory of the Pacific Factory was destroyed by the military discipline of the United States of America around March 1945. In this case, some of the training workers died, and the remaining training workers, including Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2, were placed as the steel yard under construction in the Cheongjin-jin, and moved to Cheongjin-jin. Plaintiffs 1 and Plaintiff 2 demanded for a request for the request of the reduction of dormitory for the amount of money and seal on which the wage was deposited to the reduction of the dormitory, but the reduction of money did not return the passbook and seal even after arrival, and Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 did not receive all the wages for the construction of the factory at Cheongjin-jin-jin for 12 hours a day.

(7) On the recommendation of the Daejeon City around 1941, Plaintiff 3 was mobilized as a member of the Boan City, and he was employed in the street station in Japan, and Plaintiff 4 did not receive any wage at all. around October 1942, Plaintiff 4 was recruited under the direction of the head of the Dongan-gun Village in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnamnam-do, and was employed in the street station in Japan. Plaintiff 5 was recruited under the direction of the head of the Dongan City in order to receive only a part of the wages. Plaintiff 5 was recruited under the direction of the head of the Dongan City in January 1943, and Defendant 5 was employed in the street station in Japan in accordance with the leader of the Gu Japanese iron. Plaintiff 5 was unable to receive any wage and sought for five days from the time of escape.

(8) The plaintiffs were destroyed by their respective removals from August 1945 to December 2 of the same year, and they were unable to make their respective removals any longer forced labor in their old Japanese iron.

(b) The situation before and after;

(1) Deposit of unpaid wages

On March 18, 1947, the former Japanese legal entity deposited the Plaintiff 1 (the △△△△△△△△△△ at the time of forced labor, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○), as the principal deposit, the sum of 50.52N, the sum of 495.52N, the sum of 57.44N, the sum of 467.4N, the sum of 410N, the sum of 57.4N, the sum of 410N, the sum of 1946, and the sum of 3.80N, the sum of 1946, the sum of 400 UN, the sum of 150, the sum of 100, the sum of 405 UN, the deposit of the Plaintiff 2 (the △△△△△△△△△△△△△) as the principal deposit.

(2) Dissolution of the old Japanese iron;

In accordance with the enactment and enforcement of the former Act on the Emergency Measures in the Gyeongsung (Act No. 7 of Aug. 15, 1946) and the Act on the Corporate Restructuring (Act No. 40 of Oct. 19, 1946), the Japanese iron was designated as a special interest company and special interest company as stipulated in each of the above Acts, and was dissolved on April 1, 1950. The old Japanese iron was established as a company for the first half of the investment in the assets of the Japanese iron, a company for the second half of the Japanese iron, a company for the second half of the steel, a company for the second half of the steel, a company for the second half of the steel, a company for the second half of the steel, and a company for the second half of the steel (hereinafter referred to as the "second half company").

(3) Conclusion of treaties and subsidiary agreements to promote national correction between Japan and Korea

From the end of 1951, the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan discussed the issue of national correction commercialization, and the issue of compensation before and after childbirth on June 22, 1965, one of the "Convention on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan with the aim of national correction" and the agreements attached thereto, was "Agreement on the Settlement of Disputes Concerning Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation between Japan and Japan" (hereinafter "the Agreement on Claims"). Article 1 of the Agreement on Claims stipulates that Japan shall provide 300 million dollars free of charge and make loans of 200 million dollars in the Republic of Korea for 10 years, and Article 2 of the Agreement on Claims is set forth as follows:

1. The Contracting States confirm that the issues of property, rights and interests of both Contracting States and their nationals (including corporations), and claims between both Contracting States and their nationals, including those set out in Article 4 (a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed on September 8, 1951, are completely and finally resolved.

2.The provisions of this Article shall not affect the following (except that has been the object of any special measure taken by any Contracting State by the date of signing this Agreement):

(a)the property, right and interest of a national of a Contracting State who has resided in the other Contracting State between August 15, 1947 and the date of signature of this Agreement;

(b)the property, rights and interests of a Contracting State and its nationals, acquired in the course of ordinary contacts after August 15, 1945, or entered under the jurisdiction of the other Contracting State;

3.2Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, any assertion may not be made on any measure taken on the property, rights and profits of a Contracting State and its nationals under the jurisdiction of the other Contracting State on the date of signature of this Agreement and on any claim against a Contracting State and its nationals and any claim against the other Contracting State and its nationals arising from the reasons arising before the same person.

In addition, with respect to Article 2 above, the meeting minutes (Ⅰ) of the Agreement on Claim, are defined as follows:

(a) The term “property, rights and interests” has been understood to mean all the substantive rights of any kind, the property value of which is recognized on the basis of legal basis.

(e) The measures to be taken pursuant to paragraph 3. of the same Article were consistent with the opinion that each country's domestic measures should be taken to resolve the issue of the property, rights and interests of the two countries and their people and their people's claims as referred to in subparagraph 1 of the same Article.

(g) The issue of the property, rights and interests of the two countries and their nationals, which have been fully and finally resolved as referred to in 1.1. of the same Article, as well as the claims between the two countries and their people, includes all claims belonging to the scope of the "Written Request for Japan of Korea" (as referred to in the 8 items above) submitted from the Korean side at the Han Session, and therefore, no assertion may be made regarding the said 1.0 Tues Request for Japan.

In addition, the 8-day claim in the above Agreed Minutes included the outstanding amount of Korean people, compensation for damages caused by war, claims against Korean people in Japan or Japanese corporations.

(4) Follow-up measures under the Claims Agreement.

On December 17, 1965, Japan enacted and implemented the "Act on the Measures for Property Rights of the Republic of Korea, etc. (Law No. 144, hereinafter "Act on the Measures for Property Rights")" (Act No. 144, hereinafter "Act on the Measures for Property Rights") pursuant to Article 2 of the Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea on the Resolution of Issues concerning Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation.

On the other hand, the Republic of Korea enacted the Act on February 19, 1966 in order to determine the basic matters for the use of funds imported under the Agreement on Claims, and thereafter, enacted the Act on January 19, 1971, and received a total of 109,540 reports as a result of the receipt of the citizen's daily claim report for ten months. In order to enforce the actual compensation for the said reported portion, the Act on the Compensation for Civil Claims was enacted on December 21, 1975 through June 30, 197, and the Act on the Compensation for Civil Claims was repealed on December 31, 1982.

(5) Establishment of the defendant

On March 31, 1970, the Nagoya Steel Co., Ltd. changed its trade name to the Japanese iron Co., Ltd., and on May 29, 1970, merged the late steel Co., Ltd.

C. Progress of litigation in Japan

On December 24, 1997, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 filed a lawsuit with the District Court of Mada in Japan seeking wage payments and damages from illegal acts against the Defendant. On March 27, 2001, the judgment of the Plaintiff was dismissed, and on November 19, 2002, the appellate court of Mada has dismissed the appeal on November 19, 200, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 9, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lawsuit”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs were mobilized in Japan by the recruitment officer of the former Japanese iron, a telegraphic body of the defendant, to ensure the acquisition of technology, the stable job security after returning to Korea, and the provision of sufficient meals and wages to the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs actually asserted that the defendant, who succeeded to the obligations of the former Japanese iron, is liable to pay consolation money of KRW 100,000,00 for each of the plaintiffs, since he was deprived of the plaintiffs' freedom against the plaintiffs' will at various factories of the previous Japanese iron, in fact, in the situation of deprivation of the plaintiffs' freedom against the plaintiffs' will.

B. Defendant’s assertion

On this issue, the defendant asserts that the part of the claim of the above plaintiffs in the lawsuit in this case should be dismissed in violation of res judicata since the plaintiff 1 and 2 had already been ruled against the defendant in Japan, and the claim of the above plaintiffs in this case should be dismissed in violation of res judicata. The plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5, even if they were mobilized by coercion or deception, since the mobilization was merely a means of forced labor, and the tort was committed only in Japan. Thus, since the Republic of Korea is not a tort, there is no international jurisdiction in the court of the Republic of Korea, and there is no international jurisdiction in the court of the Republic of Korea, and the above part of the lawsuit in this case should be dismissed in violation of the law. Further, even if it is legitimate, ① the claim of the plaintiffs in this case was extinguished due to the agreement on the claim and its subsequent measures, and ② the defendant was different from the Japanese iron and did not succeed to the consolation debt against the plaintiffs in the old Japanese

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. Whether the Korean court has jurisdiction over international jurisdiction

We examine the defendant's defense that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed because the court of Korea has no international jurisdiction.

(1) Standard for determining the existence of international jurisdiction

On the other hand, with respect to general standards for determining the existence of international jurisdiction, the Korean Private International Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6465, Apr. 7, 2001) provides an abstract standard in Article 2(1) that "where the party or the disputed case has substantial relations with the Republic of Korea, the court shall have the international jurisdiction in cases where the party or the disputed case has substantial relations with the Republic of Korea. In this case, the court shall comply with reasonable principles in determining the existence of substantive relations, in accordance with the ideology of allocation of international jurisdiction," and Article 2(2) provides that "the court shall consider the provisions of jurisdiction in domestic law, and shall consider the existence of international jurisdiction in light of the purport of paragraph (1), and shall consider the special nature of international jurisdiction in light of the purport of paragraph (1)."

Therefore, in determining international jurisdiction, not only the basic ideology of ensuring fairness between the parties, the propriety, speediness and economy of trials, but also personal interests such as equity, convenience and predictability of the parties to litigations, and the interests of the courts or the state, such as appropriateness, speediness and efficiency of judgments, and effectiveness of judgments, shall also be taken into consideration. Whether to protect any of these diverse interests in individual cases should be determined reasonably by taking objective criteria of the substantial relationship between the suspension of laws and the parties to the case and the substantial relationship between the case in dispute and the suspension of laws (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59788, Jan. 27, 2005).

(2) Determination as to the instant lawsuit

㈎ 의무이행지

The plaintiffs asserted that the claim in this case is the claim for damages, and that the performance of the obligation is the domicile of the plaintiffs in accordance with the principle of finance, the Korean court of Korea has the international jurisdiction over the claim.

On the other hand, according to Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit concerning property rights can be brought to the court having jurisdiction over the place where the obligation is to be performed. Since a claim for damages arising from a tort is a claim for the performance of obligation, if it is recognized that a lawsuit seeking damages can be brought to the country having jurisdiction over the domicile of the injured party corresponding to the place where the obligation is performed uniformly, the defendant would be forced to bring an action at an unforeseeable place and would be contrary to the fairness. Thus, the performance of the obligation stipulated in the above provision

Therefore, with respect to the lawsuit of this case for which the plaintiffs sought consolation money according to the tort liability against the defendant, the international jurisdiction cannot be deemed to exist in the Republic of Korea based on the provisions of the performance of the obligation under Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, the defendant'

㈏ 불법행위지

The plaintiffs recruited the plaintiffs by deceiving the plaintiffs in collusion with the government of Japan and the old Japanese law, and deceiving the plaintiffs is premised on forced labor, and thus, it is the beginning of tort called forced labor, and as long as the act of deceiving them was conducted in the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea is a tort, and the court of the Republic of Korea has international jurisdiction over the lawsuit of this case.

As seen in the above 1-A, in the case of plaintiffs 1 and 2, unlike the contents presented in the recruitment advertisement, they actually engaged in surveillance under very poor conditions, and were engaged in labor without being mobilized to receive wages without being aware of the specific labor conditions or contents. If the plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 were to engage in forced labor after they were mobilized, tort is committed in a series of continuous processes from mobilization of the plaintiffs to Japan, and thus, it constitutes tort in Korea. Accordingly, Korea is a tort and substantial relation with this case as a tort.

In addition, since the plaintiffs who can be deemed as the most important litigation materials are residing in the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea has substantial relations with this case as the living basis of the parties, and since the judgment on the claim of this case is closely related to the conclusion of the claim agreement and the subsequent measures of the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea has substantial relations with the dispute case. Furthermore, this case can be predicted that the plaintiff's forced labor through mobilization of the citizens of the Republic of Korea can claim compensation for damages in the Republic of Korea. Considering the plaintiffs and the defendant's ability to perform the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the recognition of jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea court of Korea does not significantly compromise the fairness between the parties, and as long as the defendant appoints an agent who has an office in the Republic of Korea and is responding to the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that compelling

(3) Conclusion

Thus, although the court of the Republic of Korea has international jurisdiction as the place of obligation performance, the defendant's defense is without merit, since the court of the Republic of Korea has international jurisdiction as the place of tort.

B. Determination as to whether a conflict between res judicata and res judicata

The fact that Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 received a final and conclusive judgment of dismissal of the complaint in the previous suit of this case filed by Japan with the same content as the suit of this case against the Defendant is examined as to whether the filing of the suit of this case conflicts with the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment.

(1) Requirements for approving final judgment of a foreign court

According to the provisions of Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Act, a final judgment of a foreign court shall be recognized as international jurisdiction in accordance with the principle of international jurisdiction under the Acts and subordinate statutes of the Republic of Korea, (2) the losing defendant has responded to the lawsuit even if he has not been served with the complaint or other document corresponding thereto and notice of date or order by lawful method, or has not been served with the time required for defense, (3) recognition of the judgment does not violate good morals and other social order of the Republic of Korea, (4) mutual guarantee, and (4) if the final judgment of a foreign court satisfies the above requirements for approval, it shall be recognized as effective in Korea. If the final judgment of the foreign court satisfies the above requirements for approval, filing a new lawsuit at the Korean court shall conflict with res judicata

(2) Determination

㈎ 이 사건이 위 4가지 요건을 충족하는지에 대하여 보건대, 먼저 ① 일본은 피고의 사무소 소재지이므로, 이 사건 전소가 제기된 일본국 재판소가 위 사건에 대하여 국제재판관할권을 가지고, ② 원고 1, 원고 2가 이 사건 전소에서 원고로 소를 제기하였다가 패소하였고, 피고가 패소한 경우가 아니므로, 위 ①, ②요건은 모두 충족되었다 할 것이다.

Next, as to the requirements, mutual guarantee is sufficient when compared to the requirements for approval under the laws, precedents, and practices of foreign countries, and there is no need to conclude a treaty with the parties. If the requirements for recognition of the same kind of judgment between Korea and foreign countries are not significantly balanced, the requirements prescribed in foreign countries are not excessive than those prescribed in the Republic of Korea, and there is no substantial difference in important points, it shall be deemed that the requirements for mutual guarantee have been satisfied. It is sufficient that the foreign country in question can expect the actual approval even if there is no case of the approval of the same kind of judgment in the country in question (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da74213, Oct. 28, 2004, etc.). In Japan, Article 118 of the Civil Procedure Act provides the same contents as Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Act of Korea with respect to the approval of the foreign judgment. Thus, there is a mutual guarantee, and thus, the above requirements are satisfied.

Thus, we will examine the above three requirements, namely, whether recognizing the validity of the judgment on the previous suit of this case does not violate the good morals and other social order of the Republic of Korea.

㈏ 선량한 풍속 기타 사회질서 위반의 의미

③ In light of the contents of Articles 451(1)6, 7, and 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the grounds for retrial of the Republic of Korea (see Supreme Court Decision 93Meu1051, 1068 delivered on May 10, 1994), where the defendant could not assert the fraudulent grounds, such as obtaining a judgment from the court of the court of the judgment by using the above evidence, and there is a high level of proof as to the fraudulent acts subject to punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 93Meu1051, 1068 delivered on October 28, 2004). In light of the contents of Article 451(1)6, 7, and 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the grounds for retrial of the Republic of Korea (see Supreme Court Decision 93Meu1051, 1068 delivered on May 10, 1994).

In this case, it is clear that the decision of the court of Japan does not fall under the case of the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of Korea, and it is a question whether the decision of the court of Japan itself is against good morals or other social order.

㈐ 이 사건 전소의 판결 내용

As shown in the evidence Nos. 2-1 and 6, the court of Japan in the previous suit of this case dismissed the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that in accordance with the Company Competitive Measures Act and the Corporate Restructuring Act enacted and implemented on 1946 in order to resolve the problem of strict compensation and unpaid wages, the plaintiffs' wage claims and damages liability for tort fall under the old bonds prescribed in the above Acts, and the second company does not automatically succeed to the old Japanese bonds belonging to the old account, and the second company did not automatically succeed to the old bonds of the previous Japanese bonds, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the second company has expressed its intention to succeed to the old bonds of the previous Japanese bonds of this case. Thus, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim by deeming that some of the second companies were merged and established did not succeed to the defendant's obligations against the plaintiffs.

㈑ 판단

We examine whether the above judgment of the Japanese court itself is against good morals and other social order.

1) The applicable law of dissolution, division, and merger of the company

The issue of corporate law, including the establishment of a company, the existence and scope of legal capacity, capacity to act, organization and internal relations, rights and obligations of employees, etc., shall be applied to the issue of corporate law, including the matters from the establishment to the extinction of the company. Thus, if a part of the company is dissolved to be re-merged after the dissolution of the company, the procedure and the subsequent legal effect of the company, i.e., the extinction of legal personality and the succession of rights and obligations, shall also be governed by the applicable law.

Article 29 of the Conflict of Law (amended by Act No. 6465 of Apr. 7, 2001; hereinafter "former Conflict of Law") provides that "the commercial company's ability to act was governed by the law in which the place of business is located", and there was no explicit provision on the governing law, and there was no difference between theories such as the principle of law established and the principle of law established and the principle of law established. However, even if any opinion was followed, there was no difference in the fact that the governing law of the previous Japanese iron is a Japanese law (Article 16 of the Private International Law after the specialized revision provides that "the governing law of its establishment shall be governed by the governing law of its establishment." Article 16 of the former Conflict of Law adopts the principle of law established by stipulating that "the corporation or organization shall be governed by the governing law of its establishment." Article 29 of the former Conflict of Law, which is a law of Japan at the time to determine whether to dissolve the legal personality and whether to succeed to obligations, etc. (In this regard, the plaintiffs are against the above theory of legal personality.).

2) Determination pursuant to the provisions of the Company Minor Action Act and the Corporate Restructuring Act

The foreign law should be interpreted and applied in accordance with the meaning and content of the foreign law which is actually interpreted and applied in its own country (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da70064, Jan. 10, 2003, etc.). According to the evidence No. 1-1 of the evidence No. B, the company's calculation should be managed separately from the new account and the old account on Aug. 11, 1946 (hereinafter "designated time"). The company's continuation of business and the promotion of the industrial recovery before and after the designation of the company shall belong to the new account (Articles 1 and 7 of the above Act). The former claims arising before and after the designation of the company shall be prohibited from extinguishing the old claims (Article 14 of the above Act), even in exceptional cases where the former is approved, it shall be possible to limit the amount of the new account to be paid to the new account and shall be set out within the extent of the amount of the approval of the new account (Article 14 of the above Act).

In full view of the above provisions, the plaintiffs' right to claim consolation money is caused before the designation date, and the purport of the above provisions is premised on the fact that the old bonds belong to the old account. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs' right to claim consolation money belongs to the old account.

As to this, the plaintiffs refer only to the causes arising prior to the designation of a designated entity, and do not refer to the tort that forced labor for the purpose of war crime, such as the plaintiffs, and therefore, they asserted that the plaintiffs' rights are not the old bonds, but the new account and the old account are the rights that can be exercised. However, since there is no ground to recognize this, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

In addition, according to Eul evidence No. 1-2, the Corporate Restructuring Act provides that when a special interest company invests assets belonging to the new account, the person who is invested shall succeed to the obligations that are borne by the new account of the special interest company after the designation (Article 10 of the above Act), and there is no provision about the succession of obligations belonging to the old account, and if the amount of losses and profits accrued until the designation exceeds the profit amount (Article 3 of the above Act), the excess amount shall be calculated as the amount of special loss (Article 4 of the above Act) and the amount of losses shall be borne by the shareholders and creditors (Article 7 of the above Act) in accordance with certain standards (Article 7 of the above Act).

In full view of the above provisions, on the premise that the second company does not automatically succeed to the obligations of the special interest company, it may be deemed that the second company has a provision to protect creditors only in the case of succeeding to the obligations of the new account after the designation date. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the second company comprehensively succeeds to the old claims belonging to the old accounts of the special interest company.

As to this, the plaintiffs' claims based on labor relations naturally succeed to a new company as a matter of course by the change of the management body of the company, and the plaintiffs' claims for damages based on forced labor are a kind of claims based on labor relations, so they claim that the defendant naturally succeeded to the obligations of the plaintiffs of the previous Japanese iron, but there is no ground to recognize this. Therefore, the above assertion

(3) Conclusion

Thus, the contents of the judgment of Japan cannot be permitted in light of the good morals and social order of the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the above judgment of Japan is valid in Korea. Therefore, the part of the claim of Plaintiffs 1 and 2 among the lawsuit of this case brought again to the Korean court in the same lawsuit as the above judgment of Japan, and this court cannot make a judgment inconsistent with the previous judgment because it is contrary to the res judicata effect of the above final judgment. Thus, the above part of the claim cannot be considered more and less.

4. Determination on the claims of Plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

(1) Whether liability for damages was established due to violation of international law

Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, and Plaintiff 5 (hereinafter “Plaintiff 3, etc.”) asserted that the former Japanese iron violated the provisions of international law, such as the International Labor Organization (ILO) Treaty No. 29 (C29 Formed Lbour Convention), the International Covenant on Human Rights, etc., and thus, they are liable for damages.

On the other hand, there is a view that the state can only be the subject of the recognition of the subject of the private person under international law, but there is a lack of grounds to deny the subject of the private person under international law. However, the issue of whether the private person can actually be the subject of international law depends on the contents of individual treaties and the norms set forth in customary international law. In particular, whether the private person can make a direct claim against another state or its citizen based on international law can be claimed from the private person whose right has been infringed due to the violation of international law, such as each treaty, etc., and it can be possible when the specific requirements, procedures, and effects of the claim for the recovery of damage are prescribed, or when the legislative measures stipulated in the domestic law that specifically provides for the rights of the private person under international law have been taken.

In this case, there is no provision that allows a private person who suffered damage from forced labor to seek direct compensation for damage against the subject of forced labor. Thus, the plaintiff 3 et al. cannot seek compensation for damage caused by violation of international law. Thus, this part of the claim by the plaintiff 3 et al. is without merit without further review.

(2) Whether liability for damages is established due to domestic violation of domestic law

㈎ 준거법

구 섭외사법 제13조 제1항 에 의하면, 불법행위로 인하여 생긴 채권의 성립 및 효력은 그 원인된 사실이 발생한 곳의 법에 의하도록 되어 있는바, 위 3.가.(2)의 ㈏항에서 본 바와 같이, 구 일본제철의 불법행위는 대한민국 내 원고 3 등의 각 거주지역에서 원고 3 등을 동원한 것으로부터 일본에 이르러 강제노동에 종사시키기까지 일련의 계속된 과정에서 이루어진 것이므로 대한민국은 불법행위지로서 그 원인된 사실이 발생한 곳에 해당한다. 따라서 대한민국 민법의 불법행위에 관한 규정이 피고의 손해배상책임 성립 여부를 판단하는 준거법이 된다.

㈏ 판단

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the Japanese government established a long-term plan to secure human resources necessary for the Japanese iron office and mobilized Korean human resources, and the former Japanese iron system can be acknowledged as a fact of expansion of human resources in collusion with the Japanese government's human resources mobilization policy, such as active participation in the Steel Control Council. It is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff 3 et al. was mobilized by the aforementioned systematic deception of Japanese government and the old Japanese iron system without being well aware of the labor contents and the environment to be faced in Japan under the situation where the Republic of Korea was under Japan's control. In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff 3 et al. were mobilized by the above systematic deception of Japanese government and the old Japanese iron system without being aware of the labor contents and the environment to be faced in Japan at the time. In addition, the plaintiff 3 et al. was engaged in dangerous labor in a very poor environment by distinguishing his family members and his family members at the age, and it was impossible to leave the system by subject to regular surveillance.

Therefore, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 3 et al. suffered mental pain while engaging in forced labor as above. Therefore, the old Japanese iron has a duty to pay the above emotional pain to Plaintiff 3 et al. in monetary, barring any special circumstance.

B. Whether the plaintiff 3 et al.'s claim for consolation money has expired under the Agreement on Claims

Considering the overall purport of arguments in the above 1.B.(3) and (4) agreements, the contents of the meeting minutes, and evidence Nos. 17 and 18, the agreement on claims provides that in order to resolve the issues regarding the property, rights, profits, and claims between the two countries and their citizens, domestic measures shall be taken in each other with respect to the property, rights, and profits of the two countries and their citizens (Article 2(3), 2(3), and 2(3) of the agreement on claims (Article 2(3) of the agreement on claims), and any assertion may not be made against them (Article 2(3) of the agreement on claims). Accordingly, the two countries of the Republic of Korea and Japan shall not exercise diplomatic protection rights against the domestic measures taken by the other country through the conclusion of the agreement on claims, and shall be entrusted to the decision of each country in which the other country takes domestic measures. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the claims of the plaintiff and its citizens are not extinguished by the agreement on claims for consolation money in this case.

C. Whether the former Japanese iron bars and the defendant's corporate personality and the defendant's debts are succeeded

The former Japanese iron bears the obligation to pay consolation money due to tort against the plaintiff 3 et al., and it is examined whether the plaintiff 3 et al. can exercise the above claim for consolation money against the defendant.

The plaintiff 3 et al. asserts that the defendant succeeded to the business property, officers, employees, and resignation of the former Japanese iron as it is, and that the defendant has paid consolation money and consolation money to the bereaved family members of the person requisitioned by the former Japanese iron, even in light of the fact that the defendant paid consolation money and consolation money to the bereaved family members of the person requisitioned by the former Japanese iron.

In addition, even though the defendant succeeded to the business property, officers, and employees of the previous Japanese iron, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant succeeded to the business property, officers, and employees of the previous Japanese iron, and even if the defendant succeeded to the business property, officers, and employees of the previous Japanese iron as they are, it cannot be said that the defendant is a legal person of the previous Japanese iron with the previous Japanese iron on the ground that the trade name is similar to that of the previous Japanese iron. In addition, the fact that the defendant paid consolation money and consolation money to the bereaved family members of the deceased who died from the Japanese scrapion from the Japanese iron office on July 1945 and on August 1945 of the same year, the fact that the defendant was drafted by the previous Japanese iron office and paid booms and consolation money to the bereaved family members of the deceased who died from the Japanese scrapion from the Japanese iron office is not disputed between the parties, it cannot be said that the defendant is a legal person of the previous Japanese iron on the ground of this fact.

또한, 피고가 구 일본제철의 원고 3 등에 대한 채무를 승계하지 아니한 것은 위 3.나.(2)의 ㈑항에서 본 바와 같은바, 피고가 구 일본제철과 법인격이 동일하다거나 피고가 구 일본제철의 원고 3 등에 대한 위자료지급채무를 승계하였음을 전제로 하여, 피고에 대하여 위자료 지급을 구할 수는 없다 할 것이다. 따라서 원고 3 등의 이 사건 청구는 이유 없다.

D. Whether the statute of limitations has expired (additional determination)

(1) Defendant’s assertion and judgment

Since the defendant asserts that the claim of consolation money of the plaintiff 3 et al. of this case has expired by prescription, the claim of consolation money of the plaintiff 3 et al. of this case shall be terminated by prescription if it is not exercised within 10 years from the date of the tort committed by the plaintiff 3 et al. of this case (Article 766 (2) of the Civil Code), and even if counting from June 22, 1965 of the date of the tort alleged by the plaintiff 3 et al. of this case, it is obvious that the lawsuit of this case was filed on February 28, 2005, which was 10 years after the lawsuit of this case had already been filed, since the claim of consolation money of the plaintiff 3 et al. of this case had already expired by prescription before the lawsuit of this case.

(2) The plaintiff 3 et al.'s assertion and judgment

As to this, Plaintiff 3 et al. asserted that ① the statute of limitations has not been completed due to legal grounds such as the existence of the agreement on claims, and ② the Defendant’s defense of the statute of limitations is contrary to the good faith principle or the prohibition of abuse of rights

First of all, the above (1) The extinctive prescription period does not proceed from the time when a right arises objectively and is able to exercise its right, but the "non-exercise of right" refers to the case where there is a disability in the exercise of the right, for example, the passage of the period or the non-performance of conditions, etc., and even if the existence of right or the possibility of exercise of right is not known and there is no negligence, such cause does not constitute a legal ground for disability (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1381, Apr. 27, 2006, etc.). Accordingly, there has been controversy over whether the government of the Republic of Korea waives its right to diplomatic protection against the citizens of the Republic of Korea and the interpretation of the contents of the agreed minutes, or whether the plaintiff 3 et al. believed that it is impossible to exercise their right due to the lack of clear knowledge of the above agreement on the right to claim damages against Japan or Japanese citizens, and there is no reason to prevent the plaintiff 3 et al. from exercising their right.

Then, the above 2 cases where the debtor's assertion for the completion of the extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith. The above 2 cases refer to cases where the debtor made it impossible or considerably difficult for the creditor to exercise his right or the interruption of prescription before the expiration of the prescription period, committed an act that makes the creditor believe it unnecessary, or there was an objective obstacle that the creditor is unable to exercise his right, or where the debtor made the right holder trust, or where there are special circumstances such as making the creditor receive the repayment of the debt under the same conditions as the need for the protection of the creditor, or where other creditors of the same conditions receive the repayment of the debt, etc., the refusal of the performance of the obligation is remarkably unfair or unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71881, May 13, 2005, etc.). In this case, it is difficult to deem that the debtor's refusal of the performance or unfair performance of the obligation of the former Japanese legal system without the legal personality of Japan is considerably unfair on the ground that there existed.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Haap-be (Presiding Judge) Ha Hong-young

1) 1. The following information is the property rights of the Republic of Korea or its citizens, and the property rights of the Republic of Korea or its citizens under Article 2 of the Agreement, which fall under profits, are extinguished on June 22, 1965 except for the application of the following paragraphs (1). (2) The purpose of which is to obtain Japan or its citizens' claims against Japan or its citizens as security rights or claims (2).

(2) Before August 15, 1945, a national of the Republic of Korea has the right to claim compensation for Japan prior to that of August 15, 1945. Matters necessary for the determination of the standards, types, limits, etc. of compensation for private claims under paragraph (2) of this Article shall be determined by a separate Act.

3) The scope of the report under the provisions of Article 2 (Scope of Persons Subject to Report) (1) of this Act, except for those who had resided in Japan from August 15, 1947 to June 22, 1965, claims against Japan and Japanese nationals, etc. on or before August 15, 1945, are categorized as follows: