2012Na4497 Compensation (as such)

1. The lawsuits of the deceased A;

A person shall be appointed.

2. The lawsuits of the deceased C;

(a) D;

B.

C.

D.

E

F.

G.

(h) K;

3. An applicant for a lawsuit with the net L;

77. M

B.

C. 0

(d) P;

E

F.

G.

4.T

5.The party to the lawsuit against the deceasedU.S.

(A)

B.

C.

D.

E

(f) AA;

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff BB

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff CC

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

미쓰비시 ( 三菱 ) 중공업 주식회사

Law Firm EE

Busan District Court Decision 200Gahap7960 Decided February 2, 2007

Busan High Court Decision 200744288 Decided February 3, 2009

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da22549 Decided May 24, 2012

May 21, 2013

July 30, 2013

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from May 21, 2013 to July 30, 2013 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining appeals is dismissed.

3. One-third of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

4. The portion of money under paragraph (1) above may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the plaintiffs' claim amount by the plaintiff and the prize amount table by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to

'The amount stated in the claim column of the attached Table '' and the copy of the complaint in this case.

The payment of 20% interest per annum from the day after service to the day of full payment shall be made (the plaintiffs shall be first paid).

A claim for consolation money of KRW 100,000 for each tortfeasor's illegal act and KRW 1,00,000 for unpaid wages

The portion of the claim for unpaid wages at the trial after remanding shall be withdrawn, and 110 million won per victim shall be withdrawn.

The claim is sought by amendment of the purport and cause of the claim).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Japan, on August 22, 1910, entered into the Korea-Japan Merger Treaty between the Korean Peninsula and the Korean War (hereinafter “Korea-Pacific War”), and controlled the Korean Peninsula through the Korean War General. Japan gradually entered the wartime system by causing the Japanese War in 1931 and the Japanese War in 1937, respectively. On December 8, 1941, Japan led to the Pacific War.

2) Japan enacted "National Disciplinary Ordinance (Ordinance No. 451 of April 1, 1938)" under "National Mobilization Act (Ordinance No. 451 of the Ministry)" on July 8, 1939, when human resources and materials are not sufficient due to these wars, Japan has actively promoted policies to move Korean residents living in the Korean Peninsula with special functions such as flight machine parts and steel luminous manufacturer, ship repair machine manufacturer, etc., and continued to implement labor mobilization plans (in the early stage, it was conducted in the form of recruitment in accordance with the labor mobilization plans as there is concern about the resistance of Korean people) and continuously insufficient human resources and materials to reach the highest order of the Pacific War, and according to the resolution of each (No. 55 of "No. 1, 1938) on August 8, 194, 194 to make them available to the general public regardless of whether he/she has a special function to make it available to the general public (No. 38).

나. 망 A, C, L, U, 원고 T의 강제징용 등 1 ) 망 A ( 창씨개명 成元昌煥 ), C ( 창씨개명 松本根睦 ), L ( 창씨개명 河村炳穆 ), 원고T ( 창씨개명 野村昌喜 ), 망 U ( 창씨개명 黃山尙華. 이하 이들을 합쳐 부를 때 ' 원고 등 ' 이라 한다 ) 는 1923년부터 1926년 사이에 한반도에서 출생한 한국인들인데, 국민징용령에 기하여 망 A은 1944. 9. 20. 경 거주지이던 경기 평택군 포승면 신영리에서, 망 C은 1944. 9. 경 거주지이던 경기 안성군 원곡면 성주리에서, 망 L은 1944. 9. 경 거주지이던 경기 안성군 원곡면 반제리에서, 원고 T는 1944. 8. 경 거주지이던 경성부 ( 京城府 ) 중구 남미창정 ( 南米倉町 ) 에서, 망 U는 1944. 10. 경 거주지이던 경성부 용산구 청파동에서 각 징용영서 ( 徵用令書 ) 를 받았다 .

2) The plaintiff et al. collected a draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft.

4 ) 원고 등은 각자의 작업장에서 월 2회의 휴일을 제외하고는 매일 아침 8시부터 저녁 6시까지 철판을 자르거나 동관을 구부리는 일, 배관일 등에 종사하였고, 하루 작업을 마치면 구 미쓰비시가 마련한 숙소인 료 ( 豪 ) 로 돌아가 숙식을 해결하였는데, 식사의 양이나 질은 현저히 부실하였고, 숙소도 다다미 12개 정도의 좁은 방에서 10 ~ 12명의 피징용자들이 함께 생활하였다. 또한 숙소 주변에는 철조망이 쳐져 있었고 근무시간은 물론 휴일에도 헌병, 경찰 등에 의한 감시가 삼엄하여 자유가 거의 없었으며, 한 반도에 남아 있는 가족들과의 서신 교환도 사전검열에 의하여 그 내용이 제한되었다 .

The plaintiff et al. received monthly pay on the 28th of each month based on the number of attendance days from the old Smari City from the 21st to the 20th of each month. The amount paid on a monthly basis was 20N per month for the network A, 23 to 24N per month for the network C, 35N per month for the network L, 30N per month for the network L, and 30N per month for the plaintiff T.

C. On August 6, 1945, when the atomic bomb was administered by the atomic bomb, the machinery manufacturer and shipbuilding yard in the old city was destroyed, and the work was suspended. Japan, on August 15, 1945, declared an air uniform to the United States and allied countries including the United States, was the Pacific War.

2) In the process of avoiding the atomic bomb, the deceased bomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb, and the deceased fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb fomb f.

3) Even after returning to Korea, the Plaintiff et al. suffered social and economic difficulties without adaptation to the previous life due to the loss of workplace prior to compulsory draft, etc., and has recently been suffering from physical disabilities, such as telegraph sense, respiratory difficulties, skin diseases, and reduction of eyesight, etc. due to exposure to exposure.

D. The former Dissolution and the defendant's establishment 1) The former Dissolution and the defendant 2 of the United States Headquarters (GH Q) of the United States Headquarters (GH Q) of Japan were newly incorporated on July 4, 1949 (No. 7 of 1946), and the new Non-Industrial Complex Readjustment and Improvement (No. 40 of 1946 of 194) were newly incorporated on May 1, 195, and the new Non-Industrial Complex Rearrangement and Rearrangement (No. 6 of 1949) was newly incorporated on July 4, 194, and the new Non-Industrial Company (No. 2 of 1949) was changed on November 1, 195.

After that, on June 30, 1964, China Heavy Industries (the trade name at the time was changed to the Seoul Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.) became the current defendant by absorbing the two remaining companies on June 30, 1964. During this process, the employees in the old Nitusea were in the position, salary, and the total tenure of office at the old Nitusea city were succeeded to the secondary company by calculating retirement allowances by adding the tenure of office at the old Nitusea city. The first president of the second company was in the position of the executive director at the time of the former Nitusea. In addition, the defendant himself also recognized the former Nitusea as a part of the defendant's company's history.

3) The Act on the Emergency Measures for Company Minority is applicable to a special company (if the company is a special company, 1946) at the time of designation.

8. 11. 00:00 means 00. The new account and the old account are established (Article 7(1)); the movables, real estate, bonds, and other property on the list of property belong to the new account at the time of designation only to the new account that is necessary for the continuation of business currently being the objective of the company and for the restoration and promotion of the previous and following industries; and, in principle, the former account belongs to the former account at the time of designation (Article 7(2)); the revenues and expenditures arising from the cause after the designation; the revenues and expenditures arising from the cause before and after the designation are the revenues and expenditures of the new account; the revenues and expenditures arising from the cause before the designation are the accounting account (Article 11(1) and (2)); the former claims are prohibited from being repaid, etc.; the former account shall be repaid in exceptional cases where payment is approved; and Article 14(1) can be performed only to the extent of certain amount where certain requirements, such as approval of the special management person.

4) Under the former Act on the Emergency Measures for Companies, the Corporate Restructuring Act, on August 11, 1946, the new account and the old account were separated on August 11, 1946, according to the former Act on the Improvement of Corporate Restructuring, and later, the company's purpose was to belong to the new account "movables, real estates, bonds, and other existing properties, etc. necessary for the continuation of the business currently being engaged in as the objective of the company, and for the recovery and promotion of the previous and previous industries", and the above properties were invested in kind, and the company was incorporated into three new companies by investing the above properties in kind, and the former account was charged with the liabilities arising up of the liabilities that occurred up to the other time, and the latter corporation was merged into the Dai Co., Ltd. established on March 25, 1957.

10.31. Dissolution.

E. Circumstances after the Pacific War

1) Conclusion of the Treaty of Peace in Japan

After the Pacific War was previously concluded on September 8, 1951, the United States and Japan, including the United States, the United Kingdom, etc., entered into the Treaty to solve the issues of compensation before and after the Pacific War. Article 4 (a) of the Treaty provides that "the processing of claims against Japan and its citizens, including the Republic of Korea, and claims against Japan and its citizens, and claims against the governing authorities and their citizens of the said region, and claims against Japan and their citizens of the said region shall be governed by special agreements between Japan and its governing authorities, as stipulated in special agreements between Japan and Japan. 2)

In accordance with the purport of Article 4 (a) of the Treaty, the issue of national correction and compensation between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan from the end of 1951 has been discussed, beginning with the discussion of the issues of national correction and compensation before and after the Japanese government.

6. 22. The "Agreement on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan relating to the Internationalization of the Republic of Korea and Japan" and the agreement attached thereto, one of the "Agreement on the Settlement of Disputes concerning Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation between Japan and Japan" (hereinafter "Agreement on Claims") was concluded. Article 1 of the Agreement on Claims stipulates that Japan will provide 300 million US dollars free of charge and make loans of 200 million US dollars to the Republic of Korea for 10 years.

1. The Contracting States confirm that the issues concerning the property, rights and interests of both Contracting States and their nationals (including legal entities), 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, should be resolved completely and finally.

2.The provisions of this Article do not affect any of the following (except as a subject matter of special measures taken by each Contracting State by the signing date of this Agreement). (a) No assertion may be made as to any measure taken on the property, right, and interest of a person who, as a national of one Contracting State, has resided in the other Contracting State between August 15, 1947 and the signing date of this Agreement, has been acquired in the course of ordinary contacts after August 15, 1945 and entered under the jurisdiction of the other Contracting State, or, subject to the provisions of March 2, 1945, has been entered under the jurisdiction of either Contracting State and its people as property, right, and interest of the other Contracting State and any claim against the other Contracting State and its people, which was due to any cause arising prior to the same person's signing date of this Agreement.

In addition, the meeting minutes of the agreement on the claim(I) set forth in Article 2 above as follows:

(a) The term “property, rights and interests” is understood to refer to all the substantive rights of every kind, the property value of which is recognized on the basis of a legal basis. (e) The measures to be taken on March 3 of the same Article were consistent with the domestic measures of each country, which are to be taken in order to resolve issues regarding the property, rights and interests of the two countries and their people and their peoples, as referred to in paragraph (1) of the same Article. (g) The issue of the property, rights and interests of the two countries and their people, which are to be completely and finally resolved as referred to in paragraph (1) of the same Article, and claims between the two countries and their people, which are submitted from the Korean side at the first time, includes all claims within the scope of the 1st century of the Republic of Korea, and therefore, it is confirmed that no assertion is possible in respect of the 1st century.

In addition, the eight major claims stated in the above Agreed Minutes are ① the Japanese bank from 1909 to 1945 shipping out of Korea to Korea through the Joseon Bank, ② the claim for the repayment of the debt of the Japanese General Shipbuilding as of August 9, 1945, ③ the claim for the repayment of the money transferred or remitted from Korea on or after August 9, 1945, ④ the claim for the repayment of the money transferred from Korea on or after August 9, 1945, ④ the rehabilitation of the corporation whose head office, head office or principal office is located in Korea as of August 9, 1945, ⑤ the payment of the outstanding amount, compensation money, and other claims of the Japanese National Bank from Korea to 1945, ⑤ the payment of the debt of the Japanese National Assembly from Korea to 194, ⑤ the payment of the debt of the Japanese National Assembly and the payment of the debt of the Japanese National Assembly, ⑤ the payment of the debt of the Japanese National Assembly and the payment of the debt of the Japanese National Assembly to 1).

3) As the agreement on claims was concluded, Japan enacted and implemented the "Act on the Measures for Property Rights of the Republic of Korea, etc. (Act No. 144, hereinafter referred to as "the Act on the Measures for Property Rights")" (Article 144, hereinafter referred to as "the Act on the Measures for Property Rights") on December 17, 1965, as the agreement on claims for property and claims were concluded. The content of the agreement is "property or interest of Article 2 of the agreement with Japan or its citizens as claims or security rights against Japan or its citizens."

22. "I will be extinguished".

B) Meanwhile, the Republic of Korea enacted "Act No. 3 of February 19, 1966 in order to determine basic matters for the use of funds paid under the agreement on claims," and subsequently enacted "Act No. 4 of January 19, 1971," and received a total of 109,540 reports as a result of the receipt of a report on the citizen's substitute claim for ten-month period of ten-month period, and enacted "Act No. 4 of January 19, 1975 for the actual payment of compensation for the above reported portion," and enacted "Act No. 4 of December 21, 1974 for the actual payment of compensation for the reported portion," and enacted "Act No. 83,519 cases from July 1, 197 to June 30, 197, the victim was forced to receive compensation for the total amount of 83,519 cases until June 19, 197.

C) Plaintiff T, net C, L, U, etc. had been sentenced to a favorable judgment on February 13, 2004 (Seoul Administrative Court 2002Guhap33943), which was brought against the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade while the lawsuit in this case was pending in the court of first instance (the first instance judgment became final and conclusive on February 13, 2004 due to the withdrawal of appeal by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade). Accordingly, the Government of the Republic of Korea held the "Private Joint Committee on Follow-up Measures for the Disclosure of Documents" (hereinafter referred to as the "Private Joint Committee") on August 26, 2005 and held the "Agreement on Claim" to the effect that the financial, civil claims, debts, etc. between the two countries based on Article 4 of the Han Francco Treaty was not negotiation to claim Japanese colonial rule, but to resolve the conflict between the Japanese government and the Japanese government on the grounds that the Japanese government did not have any legal opinion on the tort between the victim and the Japanese government on the part of the Japanese government.

F. Progress of lawsuit in Japan and death of plaintiff et al.

1) The plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit against the defendant et al. in Japan, claiming the payment of damages (10 million won per person) and wages not paid during the period of forced labor, etc. (the amount is 99,014N, 96, 056, 68, 424, 59, 195 (1), 116 (1), 649, 198 (1)) and 198 (1) and 649, 199, 196 (1) and 649) on the ground of the violation of international law, such as compulsory draft, and tort, and the court of final appeal in Japan rendered a final judgment of 195 (2) and 2) on the ground that the plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit against the defendant et al. in Japan on March 25, 199.

3) On February 24, 2001, when the instant lawsuit was pending in the court of first instance, the deceased’s heir (E, FF, B, GG, H, II, J, and K) agreed on the division of inherited property to succeed to the deceased’s sole claim against the Defendant by the Plaintiff, and the deceased B took over the deceased’s legal proceedings. On July 10, 201, the deceased’s deceased on the part of July 10, 201, the deceased and seven other co-inheritors, who were the deceased’s children, taken over the deceased’s legal proceedings as the co-inheritors. On March 11, 2011, the deceased’s wife died on the deceased’s wife’s wife’s wife and five other co-inheritors, who were the wife’s wife, were the deceased’s wife’s wife, as indicated in the attached list, and the deceased’s taking over the legal proceedings as the deceased’s wife’s children and the deceased’s other co-inheritors’s wife’s wife’s deceased’s wife’s children as the deceased’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife’s 4.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4-4-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12-1, 13 through 19-1, 2, 3, and 20-1, 2, and 42-1, 25-2 through 16, 1, 2, 40, 41, 42-1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14-1, 14, 15-2, and 2-1, 13 through 19-1, 2, 3, 42-1, 3, 4, 1, 9, 10, 12-1, 13, 14, 15-1, and 2-2, the purport of the entire pleadings of the parties at the first instance trial.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

Article 2 of the Addenda to the Private International Act provides that "The former Conflict of Laws provides that matters arising prior to the enforcement of this Act ( July 1, 2001) of this Act shall be governed by the previous Conflict of Laws," while the former Conflict of Laws does not have any provision on international jurisdiction, and, unless treaties or generally accepted international laws exist, the determination of whether to recognize a judge of a domestic court with respect to conflict of laws shall be made in accordance with the basic principles that ensure the fairness of the parties to the lawsuit, the appropriateness and promptness of the judgment. However, the decision against the plaintiff et al. after filing the same lawsuit in Japan is finalized after the examination of evidence is completed, and the defendant has no branch or business office in the Republic of Korea, and all of the causes of the lawsuit in this case are no substantial relationship with the Republic of Korea that occur in Japan, and allowing the defendant, a Japanese corporation, to repeat the same contents as that of the lawsuit in the Republic of Korea, goes against the above basic principles. Accordingly, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it

B. Determination

International jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring equity between the parties, the propriety, speediness, and economy of the trial. Specifically, as well as personal interests such as equity, convenience, and predictability of the parties to the lawsuit, as well as interests of the courts or the State, such as appropriateness, prompt, and efficiency of the trial, and effectiveness of the judgment, shall also be considered. Whether to protect any of these diverse interests is necessary or not shall be determined reasonably by taking objective criteria for the substantial relationship between the suspension of law and the parties, and the substantial relationship between the case in dispute and the suspension of law (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59788, Jan. 27, 2005, etc.). Unless Korea has yet to establish a treaty or generally approved international law principles as to international jurisdiction, the provisions concerning territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Procedure Act of Korea has also been enacted in accordance with the above basic ideology, and if the judicial interference under the above provision is in Korea, there is a judge's right to jurisdiction over the case outside Korea (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da19784, Apr. 17, 1997, 1992).

Meanwhile, Article 4(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that the general forum of a corporation, etc. shall be based on its main office or business office, and when there is no office or business office, the general forum of the corporation, etc. shall be applied to its main office or business office, and Paragraph (2) provides that the provision of Paragraph (1) shall be applied to the office, business office or business office located in the Republic of Korea with respect to the general forum of a foreign corporation, etc., taking into account various specific circumstances such as the easiness of evidence collection and the degree of burden of litigation performance, it is reasonable to recognize the jurisdiction of the Korean court even if the dispute is not about the business of a foreign corporation in the Republic of Korea (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da35037, Jun. 9, 200, etc.).

The following circumstances are revealed with respect to the instant case: (a) the Defendant, a Japanese corporation established under the Japanese law, has its principal office in Japan; (b) around 1987, around 5 employees including one Japanese employee at the time the Plaintiff et al. filed the instant lawsuit; (c) the Plaintiff et al. had a liaison office for the Defendant’s work in the Republic of Korea; and (d) the Plaintiff et al. had a liaison office for the Plaintiff et al. at the time of the instant lawsuit; and (b) the instant claim seeking compensation for damages due to a tort committed by force with Japan; (c) the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff et al. had a legal liability with respect to the Plaintiff et al. at the time of the Plaintiff et al.; (c) the Plaintiff et al. was partly of the series of illegal acts; (d) the physical evidence in the Republic of Korea supporting the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs were destroyed; (e) the Plaintiff et al. resides in the Republic of Korea; and (e) the Plaintiff et al. had a substantial relation with the history and political changes in the instant case.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. 1) The governing law, which serves as the basis for determining whether a claim for damages based on a tort was established in the instant case, ought to be determined by the norm of governing the determination of governing law applicable to legal relations that contain foreign elements in the Republic of Korea, as the suspension of law. According to the above recognition, the former Conflict of Laws (amended by Act No. 996, Jan. 15, 1962; hereinafter the same) enforced the former Conflict of Laws (amended by Act No. 996, Jan. 15, 1962).

15. 이전에 발생하였다. 이와 같이 1962. 1. 15. 이전에 발생한 법률관계에 적용되는 대한민국의 저촉규범은 1912. 3. 28. 부터 일왕 ( 日王 ) 의 칙령 제21호에 의하여 우리나라에 의용 ( 依用 ) 되어 오다가 군정 법령 제21호를 거쳐 대한민국 제헌헌법 부칙 제100조에 의하여 " 현행법령 " 으로서 대한민국 법질서에 편입된 일본의 ' 법례 ( 法例 ) ( 1898. 6 .

21. The above "Law No. 10" refers to the establishment and effect of a claim for damages caused by a tort under the law of the place where the tort occurred (Article 11), and since the illegality of this case extends over the Republic of Korea and Japan, the governing law to determine the claim for damages caused by the tort will be the law of the Republic of Korea or the Japanese law. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff et al. has already lost in the lawsuit of this case in which the Japanese law was applied, it is ratified that the plaintiff et al., who is the victims of the tort had an intention to choose the Korean law as more favorable law. If there are several countries where the governing law can be applied, the court of suspension of the law can select and determine the governing law in consideration of the degree of relationship with the case in question, the necessity of protecting the rights of the victim, predictability and justice of the applicable law of the perpetrator, and the appropriateness of the trial, etc., and considering all of the above factors, it appears that the Korean law should be the governing law prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Korean Civil Act.

B) According to the aforementioned facts and the purport of the oral argument as seen earlier, ① the former citizens of the Republic of Korea actively participate in the Japanese government’s compulsory mobilization policy to secure human resources necessary for the military enterprises, etc. during the process of performing unlawful invasion war, such as the Japanese War and the Pacific War, and forced the employees of the company to go through the Korean Peninsula with Japanese military personnel and the police, and then assigned the Plaintiff, etc. as workers at the former machinery manufacturer and the shipbuilding yard, etc. to engage in labor. ② Except during the second time of each month, the Plaintiff, etc. were forced to go back to the steel market or to put the Plaintiff, etc. into labor for an unlawful act within 6:00 a.m., it is evident that the Plaintiff et al. did not go against the duty of self-defense and the duty of self-defense, and thus, constitutes an unlawful act of self-defense and the duty of self-defense and the duty of self-defense, etc. to leave the Plaintiff’s lives and the duty of self-defense and the duty of self-defense without any mental pressure or physical pressure.

Therefore, the old Muslim is responsible for compensation for the mental suffering of the plaintiff et al. caused by the above illegal acts.

2) The parties' assertion that the defendant and the former are legally identical to each other

The plaintiffs appear to be a company with a separate legal personality from the old, but the defendant actually asserted that the defendant succeeded to the obligations of the plaintiff, etc. of the old city as the same company as the old, and that the defendant was dissolved under the previous Act on Emergency Measures for the Companies of the old city and the Corporate Restructuring Act, and the defendant was established as a company with a legal personality different from the old, and thus the claim is not succeeded to.

B) Determination

First of all, the applicable law that serves as the basis for determining whether a corporate entity is extinguished due to dissolution and division of the old time, and whether a company or defendant succeeds to a debt of the old time should be determined by the regulations of the Republic of Korea. From January 15, 1962 when the former Conflict of Laws was enforced, the law of the Republic of Korea applicable to a legal relationship that occurred prior to January 15, 1962 is "the above law of the Republic of Korea". Although the above law does not have any express provision on the law of the second and the defendant's legal identity, it has been interpreted as being determined by the law of the place of establishment or division of the juristic person, or by the law of the Republic of Korea and the law of the second and third countries after the establishment of the new law of the new law and the law of the Republic of Korea, it is natural that the law of the new law of the Republic of Korea applies to both the establishment of the new law company and the new law of the Republic of Korea and the new law of the Republic of Korea.

In this case, if the text and text of the foreign corporation's Japanese law are applied, the plaintiffs could not assert against the defendant the claims against the old city. As seen earlier, even though the defendant actually succeeded to the business property, executive officers, and employees of the old city during the process of changing the defendant into the defendant, there was no basic change in the company's human resources and physical composition, it is not acceptable in light of the Republic of Korea's public order and good morals that the defendant's obligations against the Korean citizens of the old city were evaded on the grounds of Japanese domestic law, such as the Act on the Emergency Measures for Companies of the Republic of Korea and the Act on the Restructuring of Enterprises, which are merely a technical legislation enacted for the resolution of the previous and previous settlement and compensation obligations.

Therefore, when excluding the application of the Japanese law and applying the Korean law at the time, it is reasonable to view that the old French law maintains its identity in its substance as the same company in light of the following: (a) the old French law is sufficient to evaluate that the defendant maintains its identity in its substance; (b) the old French law is dissolved as prescribed by the Japanese law, and the second company is established, and the defendant is changed to the defendant after the merger.

Since it is not different from the fact that it had gone through the procedure, the plaintiffs can exercise the right to claim against the old city against the defendant.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) As to the defendant's assertion that it goes against the res judicata of a Japanese judgment, the defendant's assertion

The judgment of the plaintiff et al. was rendered against the plaintiff et al. in Japan as the same cause of claim as the lawsuit in this case and the judgment becomes final and conclusive. Since the above Japanese judgment satisfies all the requirements for recognition of foreign judgment prescribed in Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Act in the Republic of Korea, the lawsuit in this case brought again by the plaintiff et al. to the Korean court is effective in Korea

B) Determination

Article 217 subparag. 3 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that recognition of a final judgment of a foreign court shall not violate good morals and other social order of the Republic of Korea. Here, recognition of the validity of a foreign judgment is recognized. In other words, whether recognition of a foreign judgment violates good morals and other social order of the Republic of Korea shall be determined in light of the degree of relationship between the case where the recognition of a foreign judgment affects the basic moral belief and social order that the domestic law of the Republic of Korea intends to protect the order of the Republic of Korea and the case where the foreign judgment is approved. In such a case, it shall be reviewed comprehensively as well as the order of the foreign judgment and the result that occurs when the approval of the foreign judgment is granted.

The facts of the judgment against the defendant as the same cause of the lawsuit in this case, which the plaintiff et al., brought a lawsuit against the defendant in Japan before the Japanese court for the same cause of the lawsuit in this case and dismissed the judgment. However, according to each of the statements Nos. 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 13, 14, and 15, the judgment of this case in this case was accepted as an unlawful act of the plaintiff et al. for the reason that the plaintiff et al. did not recognize that the plaintiff et al. did not go through the safe execution of the contract for the plaintiff et al. for the reason that the plaintiff et al. did not go through the contract for the merger of Korea on August 22, 1910 and concluded a treaty for the merger of Korea and did not go through the Japanese government's governing law for the reasons that the plaintiff et al. did not go through the safe execution of the contract for the plaintiff et al. for the reasons that the plaintiff et al. did not go through the contract for the plaintiff et al.

As such, the reasons for the Japanese judgment of this case include the part that deemed valid to apply the General Mobilization Act of Japan and the National Disciplinary Ordinance of Japan to the Korean Peninsula, the plaintiff, etc. on the premise of the normative perception that the colonial rule of Japan on the Korean Peninsula and Korean people is legitimate.

However, Article 100 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that "The Constitution of the Republic of Korea has a effect unless it conflicts with the Constitution," and Article 101 of the Addenda provides that "The National Assembly which has enacted this Constitution has a special law that punishs malicious anti-national acts before August 15, 4278," and "The current Constitution has a unique history and tradition, light or tradition, which contains the strong history and tradition of the Republic of Korea, succeeds to the above-mentioned independent spirit declared in the Republic of Korea by establishing the Republic of Korea through a three-one movement, and re-establishs the democratic independent country," and "The Constitution of the Republic of Korea has a effect as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Korea." In addition, since the current Constitution does not stipulate that "the people of the Republic of Korea who are able to light or traditional in the old history and tradition, succeed to the law of provisional government of the Republic of Korea established through the three-one movement, and that it does not constitute a violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea from the viewpoint of Korea.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the claim of the plaintiff et al. was extinguished by the claim agreement of the plaintiff et al. is without merit, since it cannot be recognized as effective by approving the Japanese judgment of the case in Korea.

On June 22, 1965, the amount receivable, compensation and other claims of Koreans are included in the agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea, and the claims against the plaintiff et al. against the defendant have already been terminated under the agreement between the countries, which is a collective settlement agreement between the countries.

B) Determination

The following circumstances revealed in the facts of recognition prior to the conclusion of the Agreement on Claim, namely, ① the Agreement on Claim is not a negotiation for claiming compensation for Japanese colonial rule, but a political agreement is intended to resolve the financial and civil claims and obligations between the two countries based on Article 4 of the Convention on Claim, and the Economic Cooperation Fund paid by the Japanese Government to the Japanese Government pursuant to Article 1 of the Agreement on Claim does not seem to have a legal relationship with the settlement of the problem of rights under Article 2. ② The Japanese government denied the legal compensation for forced mobilization damage without recognizing the illegality of colonial rule during the negotiation process, without recognizing the illegality of the Agreement on Claim, and the Japanese government did not reach an agreement on the nature of the rule of the Korean Peninsula. Accordingly, in light of such circumstances, it is difficult to view that the agreement on Claim includes the anti-human tort in which Japan's state power was involved or the tort that was directly linked to the colonial rule and the subject of the Agreement on Claim Compensation for Damages.

As to the right to claim damages, it is reasonable to view that not only the agreement on the right to claim damages but also the diplomatic protection of the Republic of Korea has not been abandoned.

Even if the claim of the plaintiff et al. is included in the subject of the Agreement on Claims, the right of the plaintiff et al. can be directly extinguished without the consent of the citizen who has separate legal personality from the country, not by the state to waive diplomatic protection upon entering into a treaty.

Considering the conflict with the principle of modern law, ② the extinguishment of a citizen’s right to claim through a treaty is permissible under international law, barring clear grounds for treaty, considering that the State and the citizen’s individual are separate legal entities, the conclusion of a treaty cannot be deemed to have extinguished the citizen’s right to claim in addition to the diplomatic protection of the State. However, there is no sufficient ground to deem that there was the agreement between the two countries on the termination of the individual’s right to claim. ③ Considering the fact that the agreement on the right to claim that Japan enacted and implemented the Act on Measures of Property that extinguishs a citizen’s right to claim in Japan and its citizens within Japan following the agreement on the right to claim that Japan does not extinguish the citizen’s right to claim, the agreement on the right to claim itself of the Plaintiff et al. cannot be deemed to be naturally extinguished solely on the premise that the agreement on the right to claim does not extinguish the citizen’s right to claim. However, even if the right to claim is extinguished within Japan due to the waiver of the diplomatic protection of the Republic of Korea’s right to claim, it is reasonable to deem that Korea would lose diplomatic protection

Therefore, since the plaintiff et al.'s claim for damages caused by illegal acts against the defendant was not extinguished by the agreement on the claim, the plaintiffs can exercise the above claim against the defendant notwithstanding the agreement on the claim, so the defendant's above claim is without merit.

In this case, it is clear that the period of 20 years or more has passed since the date of the tort alleged by the plaintiffs, so regardless of whether the applicable law in this case is the law of the Republic of Korea or Japan, the right to claim damages claimed by the plaintiffs has expired.

B) Determination

(1) Determination of the applicable law

According to the above "law of the Republic of Korea applicable at the time when the claim by the plaintiff et al. was established, the establishment and effect of the claim for damages due to the tort are governed by the law of the place where the tort occurred (Article 11). Since the tort of this case is committed over the Republic of Korea and Japan, the governing law to determine the claim for damages due to the tort will be the law of the Republic of Korea or the Japanese law. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff et al. has already lost in the lawsuit of this case in which the Japanese law was applied, the court of the Republic of Korea shall determine the Korean law as the governing law. Furthermore, the Korean law applicable to the determination of whether the case occurred before January 1, 1960, which was enforced, constitutes a tort and whether the prescription has expired pursuant to the main sentence of Article 2 of the Addenda to the Civil Act of the Civil Act.

(2) A statement of defense that the extinctive prescription has expired

Although extinctive prescription does not proceed from the time when a right comes to exist and it is possible to exercise that right, "the case where a right cannot be exercised" refers to the case where there is a disability in the exercise of the right, for example, the absence of a period or the non-performance of conditions, etc., and even if there is no negligence due to the failure to know the existence of the right or the possibility of the exercise of the right, such a cause does not constitute a legal disability (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1381, Apr. 27, 2006, etc.).

Meanwhile, the obligor’s exercise of the right of defense based on extinctive prescription is subject to the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the principle of the Civil Act. As such, the obligor’s exercise of the right of defense based on the statute of limitations has become impossible or considerably difficult before the completion of prescription, or the obligee has objectively obstructed the obligee from exercising his right, or the obligor has shown the same attitude that the statute of limitations should not be invoked after the completion of prescription. In particular, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith is not permissible if there were special circumstances, such as: (a) the obligee’s exercise of the right of defense based on this case’s right of defense based on the agreement between the obligee and the Japanese government’s exercise of the right of defense based on the agreement between the obligee and the Japanese government’s exercise of the right of defense based on the agreement between the obligee and the Japanese government’s exercise of the right of defense based on the evidence duly admitted before the conclusion of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Japanese government’s exercise of the right of defense.

In addition to the fact that there was a legal action in Japan, which makes it difficult for the plaintiff et al to have a question about the identity of the old deceased and the defendant, it is reasonable to deem that at least there was a disability that the plaintiff et al. could not exercise rights objectively in the Republic of Korea until May 1, 200, when the lawsuit in this case was brought.

Examining these points in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it would be unreasonable for the Defendant, who is in a de facto same legal status as the time of the former to claim the completion of extinctive prescription and refuse to pay damages due to illegal acts against the Plaintiffs, as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(c) Scope of liability for damages.

1) Amount of consolation money

The Defendant actively participated in the Japanese government’s policies on the mobilization of human resources to carry out an illegal colonial rule and invasion against the Korean Peninsula in the past, and forced the Plaintiff, etc. to engage in forced labor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, etc. had yet to be forced to engage in the above-mentioned and cruel labor in an inferior environment while forced to be drafted into a minor or adult age and forced the Plaintiff, etc. to be deprived of freedom from his family and his family, and forced him to engage in the above-mentioned and cruel labor in an inferior environment. In this process, the Defendant suffered damages from the atomic bomb, which was immediately invested in the Roman. In light of the degree of illegality of such harmful act, the degree of the Defendant’s participation, the degree of the Plaintiff, etc.’s participation, the degree of labor intensity, the degree of suppression of free suppression, wages, etc., and so on, the degree of damages suffered by the Plaintiff, etc. after their return to Korea for a period exceeding 60 years from the date of closing argument to the date of closing argument, the Defendant did not pay consolation money for 10 years in the present case.

2) Inheritance relations

On the other hand, the fact that each of the litigants, C, L, and U died and each of the litigants listed in the separate sheet of the above deceased respectively inherited or jointly inherited the right to claim damages of this case is as seen earlier, and therefore, the portion of inheritance by the litigants is the same as the portion of inheritance in the column of share of the same Table. 3) The base date of the damages for delay.

The plaintiffs claim damages for delay from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case against the defendant's obligation to pay consolation money.

In calculating consolation money, all circumstances that occurred up to the time of the closing of arguments in fact-finding trials should be considered, and it should be reflected at the time of closing of arguments, such as the national income level and monetary value, which is the basis for calculating consolation money. However, in cases where the amount of consolation money is determined in the absence of any particular change in monetary value, etc. at a time near the time when the tort was committed, there is no special problem even if damages for delay occurred from the time of tort committed. However, in cases where damages for delay occur due to considerable changes compared to the monetary value, etc. at the time of the closing of arguments at the time of the conclusion of arguments at the time of the tort and the time of the conclusion of arguments at the time of the conclusion of arguments at the time of the tort, there is a problem of excessive compensation. Therefore, even if there is a considerable change in the amount of consolation money due to the tort compared to the monetary value, etc. at the time of the closing of arguments at the time of the conclusion of arguments at the time of the tort and the time of the conclusion of arguments at the time of arguments (see Supreme Court Decision 103905Da1390, Jan. 13. 2013.

In light of such legal principles, in this case, from around 1945 to May 21, 201, the date of the closure of the tort in this case, a long-term period of at least 60 years has elapsed from around 1945 to May 21, 2013, which is the date of the closure of the argument in this case, and there has been considerable changes in the monetary value, etc., and in consideration of such changes, the amount of consolation money has been determined based on the time of the closure of argument in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs should pay damages for delay only for the period after the date of the closure of argument in this case. Therefore, there is no reason to claim damages for delay from the day after the duplicate of the complaint

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s payment of each of the money recorded in the cited amount column of the attached Table to the Plaintiffs and each of them, as seen earlier, from May 21, 2013 to May 21, 2013, which is the date of the ruling of the trial court.

30. By the time limit, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since part of the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance which differs from this conclusion is unfair, the plaintiffs' appeal is partially accepted, and each part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendant is ordered to pay the above amount. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jong-hoon

Judges, Senior Superintendent

Judges Kim Jong-chul

1) In the course of the Agreement on Claim, the Korean Government demanded USD 1.22 billion to Japan in total with respect to the Grand Claim. Of them, the person subject to requisition and the person subject to requisition.

The amount related is USD 360,000,000.

2) 1. Property rights of the Republic of Korea or its nationals, in which: (a) property rights of the Republic of Korea or its nationals are subject to Article II of the Agreement; and (b)

on June 22, 1965 (proviso omitted).

(1) Claims against Japan or its citizens

(2) The purpose of this section is to provide for Japan or any other property (property) or any claim that Japan or its people hold;

3) Claims filed under this Act for Japan not later than August 15, 1945, for which a Korean national has Article 5(1).

shall be compensated out of the authorized funds.

Matters necessary for determining the standards, types, limits, etc. of compensation for private claims under paragraph (2) shall be separately prescribed by other Acts.

4) Article 2 (Scope of Report)

The scope of the persons to be reported under the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article shall be those who have resided in Japan from August 15, 1947 to June 22, 1965.

Claims, etc. in which nationals of the Republic of Korea had been against Japan and Japan before August 15, 1945, and which are:

set forth in paragraph (1).

9. A person who was called or drafted to serve in the military, military service or labor service in Japan before August 15, 1945; and

5) The Plaintiff et al. were both Japan and juju Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. and the first instance court dismissed all the Plaintiff et al.’s claims.

For the defendant Japan in the appellate trial, the court below held that the exposure of the Japanese government's health pocket book to which the exposed person had been granted to move his residence beyond the Japanese territory.

No. 402 of July 22, 1974 (No. 402 of the month), is drawn up by the Director General of the Public Health Bureau of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, to the effect that the Act does not apply to “the Act on the Special Measures for Exposure.”

발표하고 이를 각 도도부현 ( 都道府縣 ) 의 지사와 히로시마 및 나가사키 시장 앞으로 발송하는 등 행정조치를 취한 것은 위법

for the reason that "the plaintiff et al. orders the plaintiff et al. to pay consolation money of one million U.N. and 200,000 U.N. and damages for delay."

The plaintiff et al. received a favorable judgment (the appeal by the plaintiff et al. received a decision of non-acceptance).

On the other hand, with respect to juju Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., the reason that the same applies to the defendant, i.e. the lapse of the exclusion period or the expiration

The judgment dismissing the appeal by the plaintiff et al. was rendered (the plaintiff et al. appealed but the dismissal was dismissed).

A person shall be appointed.