2015 Gohap 13718 Damage, etc.

As shown in the separate list of the plaintiffs.

1. A stock company;

2. B (B) stock company;

3. C Stock Company:

4. Daehan:

5. E company.

6. Fran Stock Company;

7. G stock company.

8. H stock company;

9. I stock company;

10. J Co.

11. K;

12. L Company;

13. M companies;

14. Nstock Company;

15.O (O) stock companies;

16. Pstock company (P stock company);

May 28, 2021

June 7, 2021

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

The phrase "Defendant" in the separate sheet of claim means that each Defendant pays to each Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,000,000 per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the plaintiffs

1) The people listed in the column of the table of the claim in the annexed sheet of the attached sheet shall be those who were forced to be mobilized by Japanese countries and were recognized as victims of forced labor in coal mines or military bases, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "victims of this case") in accordance with the Special Act on the Inspection of the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage under the Japanese colonial Rule (Article 6 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization, etc., Act No. 10143, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter referred to as "the Fact-finding Act") and registered as victims of forced mobilization under the Japanese colonial Rule during the period from the Japanese War to the Pacific War (hereinafter referred to as "the victims of this case").

2) Some of the victims of the instant case are currently alive, and in the case of the victims who died before the instant lawsuit was filed, each Plaintiff inherited the rights and obligations of the said victims indicated in the “Plaintiff” column in the said table.

B. Desertion, forced mobilization, etc. of the Korean Peninsula in Japan

1) After the Korea-Japan Merger Treaty on August 22, 1910, Japan controlled the Korean Peninsula through the Korean War Division. Japan gradually entered the exhibition system by causing the Japanese War in 1931 and the Japanese War in 1937, and caused the Pacific War in 1941.

2) When the labor force for the production of munitions was insufficient in Japan due to war, Japan enacted and promulgated the National Mobilization Act of April 1, 1938 in order to solve this problem, and enacted the "National Mobilization Act of April 1, 1942" in 1942, and recruited human resources through the government agency arrangement in each area of the Korean Peninsula. From October 1944, Japan performed the requisition for the general public pursuant to the "National Disciplinary Ordinance".

3) On August 6, 1945, the Pacific War was administered by the atomic bomb in the Roman of Japan on August 6, 1945, and lastly, the United States and other countries of the Union, including the United States.

(c) Conclusion, etc. of the sandbox Treaty;

1) On September 8, 1951, 48 countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, etc. and Japan entered into the Treaty of Peace (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention") in sandfrancco to resolve the issue of compensation before and after September 8, 1951, and the said Treaty entered into force on April 28, 1952.

2) Article 4 (a) of the sandfranco Treaty provides that "the property of Japan and its citizens located in the area stipulated in Article 2 of the above Treaty including the Republic of Korea, and claims against the governing authorities and their citizens of the said area, property owned by the governing authorities and their citizens of the said area, and the disposal of claims against Japan and their citizens of Japan shall be governed by special agreements between Japan and their respective governing authorities."

D. Details, etc. of the conclusion of the claim agreement

1) After the conclusion of the sandfcco treaty, the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan discussed the issue of compensation before and after the national correction commercialization and the Japanese government from the end of February 15, 1951. On February 15, 1952, the discussions related to the first one-time plenary session began in full time. The Republic of Korea presented "eight items" (hereinafter referred to as "eight items") at the time of the first one-day agreement between the Republic of Korea and Japan at the time of the first one-time agreement. Paragraph 5 of the eight items is "The claims for reimbursement of the Japanese bank rights, the outstanding amount, the compensation amount, and other claims of Korean natural persons (hereinafter referred to as "the claims for reimbursement of the Japanese bank rights, the outstanding amount, the compensation amount, and the other claims. On June 22, 1965, the agreement between the Republic of Korea and Japan on basic relations between Japan and its affiliated agreements, the agreement between the Republic of Korea and its affiliated agreements, and the agreement on economic cooperation (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement on property claims".

2) The Agreement on Claim provides, “The Republic of Korea and Japan wanting to resolve issues regarding property of the two countries and their nationals and claims between the two countries and to promote economic cooperation between the two countries, which shall be agreed upon as follows.” Article 1 provides, “The country of 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 Articles 2 and 3 provide that “The country of Japan shall provide 300 million dollars free of charge and make loans of 200 million dollars.”

Article 2.1. The Contracting States confirm that the problems concerning the property, rights and interests of both Contracting States and their nationals (including juristic persons), claims between them and their nationals, including those as referred to in Article 4 (a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed on September 8, 1951, shall not affect completely and finally resolved. 2. The provisions of this Article shall not affect (a) the settlement of disputes between the two Contracting States within a period of time fixed by the Government of the other Contracting State within 3 months before and after the date of their request to arbitration within 15 August 1947, between the three members of the other Contracting State, within which the Government of the other Contracting State has not agreed to do so for the purpose of conducting arbitration within 13 days before the date of their request. It shall be deemed that the Government of the other Contracting State has not agreed to do so within 13 days before the date of their submission to arbitration of the property, rights and interests of one Contracting State and its nationals in the process of ordinary contact, or within the jurisdiction of the other Contracting State.

4. The two Contracting States shall be subject to the decision of the Arbitration Committee under the provisions of this Article, as well as to the decision of the Government of any third country designated by the arbitration committee.

3) On December 18, 1965, the minutes of the agreement on the resolution of problems regarding property and claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan, which entered into on the same day as the agreement on claims, and entered into force on December 18, 1965, (Ⅰ) [the minutes of the agreement on claims(I)] set forth in Article 2 of the agreement on claims as follows:

(a) The term "property, rights and interests" has been understood to mean the substantive rights of all kinds, the property value of which is recognized in accordance with the legal basis. (e) The measures have been taken in accordance with paragraph 3 of the same Article, which means the domestic measures of each country, to be taken in order to resolve issues regarding the property, rights and interests of the two countries and their citizens as referred to in paragraph 1 of the same Article and their claims between the two countries and their citizens. (g) The issue of the property, rights and interests of the two countries and their citizens, which have been completely and finally resolved as referred to in paragraph 1 of the same Article, and the claims between the two countries and their people, which are submitted from the Korean side at a single meeting, includes all claims belonging to the scope of the 1st century of the Republic of Korea (as referred to in sub-paragraph 8 of the said sub-paragraph), and therefore no assertion may be made regarding the 1st century.

(e) the measures of the two countries following the conclusion of the agreement;

1) The Agreement on Claims was ratified by the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on August 14, 1965, consented to ratification by the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on November 12, 1965, and promulgated in both countries around that time, and entered into force on December 18, 1965 by exchanging the ratifications.

2) On February 19, 1966, Korea enacted the Act on the Operation and Management of Funds for Claims (hereinafter “the Act”) to determine basic matters for the use of funds to be paid under the Agreement on Claims, and subsequently enacted the Act on January 19, 1971 to provide for matters necessary for the collection of accurate evidence and data of large-day private claims subject to compensation. However, on the part of the Act on the Report of Claims, Korea enacted the Act on January 19, 1971, the Act on the Report of Claims (hereinafter “the Act on the Report of Claims”) to reduce the amount of claims for victims relating to compulsory mobilization to 300 million won by "one person who died before August 15, 194." Since then, Korea enacted the Act on the Report of Claims to Claims, 205 billion won, 300 million won, 500 million won, 300 million won, 500 million won, 305 billion won, 500 million won, 500 million won, 500 million won, 197.7.7.7.7.7

3) Meanwhile, on December 18, 1965, Japan enacted the Act on Measures for Property Rights of the Republic of Korea, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Measures for Property Rights") in accordance with Article 2 of the Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea on Economic Cooperation and the resolution of problems regarding property and claims and the implementation of Article 2 of the Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea on Economic Cooperation. The main contents thereof are that the property and profits of Article 2 of the Agreement on Measures for Property Rights of the Republic of Korea or its citizens are extinguished on June 22, 1965, which is the date of the Agreement on Claims for Claims.

(f) additional Korean measures.

1) On March 5, 2004, Korea enacted the Fact-finding Act for the purpose of identifying the truth of history by identifying the truth of forced mobilization damage under the Japanese colonial rule. Pursuant to the above Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the committee was established to ascertain the truth of history, and the full investigation was conducted on the damage caused by forced mobilization under the Japanese colonial rule.

2) On January 2005, Korea disclosed some documents related to the Agreement on Claim. On August 26, 2005, at the Public-Private Joint Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Public-Private Joint Committee") related to the follow-up Measures for the Disclosure of Documents made up thereafter, Korea presented official opinions on August 26, 2005 that "the Agreement was to resolve financial, civil, and debt relations between the two countries based on Article 4 of the Convention, not the negotiation to claim the Japanese colonial rule, but the agreement was to resolve the financial, civil, and debt relations between the two countries based on Article 4 of the Convention, and that the agreement cannot be deemed to have been resolved by the Agreement on Claim against the anti-human tort in which the Japanese government and the military were involved, such as the issue of the Ministry of the Military Affairs in Japan, and there remains legal responsibilities of the Japanese government, and that "Korean Koreans and the victims of the first issue were not included in the Agreement on Claim." The above official opinions contain the following official opinions

At the time of the ○○-day negotiation, the Korean government demanded political compensation based on the "fact of historical damage caused by forced mobilization", and such demand was reflected in the calculation of free capital between the two countries. It is difficult to estimate the amount of receipt by each item of the contract on claims because the agreement on claims for compensation for forced mobilization is not a decision on the amount of money by each item of claims but a decision on the total amount of money by political negotiation, and thus it is difficult to estimate the amount of receipt by each item of the contract on claims for compensation for forced mobilization, but it is difficult to determine that the government has the intention to use a considerable amount of money for the relief of victims of forced mobilization. However, in 755, it is insufficient for the victim to compensate for losses in terms of the intention to exclude the victims of forced mobilization from the objects of protection at the time of compensation by the Korean government at the time of compensation for forced mobilization.

3) Accordingly, on March 9, 2006, Korea enacted the Act on the Assistance to Victims, etc. of Forced Mobilization before and after the Pacific War (hereinafter “the Victims Support Act of 2007”) on December 10, 2007, recognizing that compensation for victims of forced mobilization based on the Act on the Compensation for Claims of Japan was insufficient, and established additional compensation policies. The above Act and its Enforcement Decree were as follows: (i) during the period from April 1, 1938 to August 15, 194, Japan’s military personnel, civilian employees, workers, etc. were mobilized abroad and were mobilized abroad during or back to Korea; (ii) during the period from 00,000 won per person’s bereaved family members were forced to provide compensation for victims of forced mobilization of Japan; and (iii) during the period from 10,000 won to 20,000 won per person or his/her bereaved family members were forced to receive compensation for forced mobilization of Japan’s remaining victims during the period of compulsory mobilization.

4) On August 14, 2009, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressed a confirmation of the official opinion of the Government of the Republic of Korea that "it is difficult to exercise the right to claim against the Japanese government since the deposit of forced mobilization is included in USD 300 million received from Japan through the conclusion of the agreement on the right to claim, since it is deemed that the deposit of forced mobilization is included in USD 300 million won received from Japan through the fact inquiry by the Seoul Administrative Court."

5) Meanwhile, the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Mobilization by Foreign Force (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Support of Victims of 2010") which was enacted and enforced from March 22, 2010 instead of the repeal of the Act on the Investigation into the Truth of the Truth of the Truth of the State and the Act on the Support of Victims of the Support of Victims of the 2007 stipulates that the victims of forced mobilization by foreign force shall be subject to compensation.

(g) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan for the promotion and protection of investment liberalization;

On the other hand, Article 14 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan for the Promotion and Protection of Investment, which entered into force on January 1, 2003, provides for the following matters: (a) the Korea and Japan for the Promotion of and Protection from Investment, which entered into force on January 1, 2003, for the purpose of promoting and protecting investment between the Republic of Korea and Japan.

1.The Contracting Parties shall promptly consult to discuss, at the request of either Contracting Party, matters relating to the dispute settlement relating to this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement or the realization of its objectives. 2. Except as otherwise provided in this Article, if a dispute between the Contracting Parties on the interpretation or application of this Agreement has not been settled satisfactoryly through consultation, it shall be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal at the written request of either Contracting Party for a binding decision which shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of international law. Except as otherwise provided in this Article, if there is no separate agreement between the Contracting Parties, the arbitration rules of the United Nations Committee on International Trade Law shall apply mutatis mutandis. 3.2. Each Contracting Party shall appoint one arbitrator within two months of the date of receipt of the notice of the request for arbitration under paragraph 2. The appointed arbitrator shall appoint a third party arbitrator with the nationality of the Contracting Party as the chairperson. The final decision of the Committee on International Trade Law, which shall be made within six months after the date of submission of all materials concerning the arbitrator's final decision, which shall not be later than six months after the date of the date of the submission of the final decision.

(h)decision of the Constitutional Court regarding Article 3 of the Agreement on Claim;

1) The victims of the above bill and the atomic victims filed a constitutional complaint seeking confirmation that such omission is unconstitutional by infringing on the basic rights of the claimant for the constitutional complaint, on the ground that there exists a dispute between the two parties on the interpretation of the claim agreement, since the Republic of Korea and Japan have a duty to take measures to resolve the dispute in interpretation in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Article 3 of the Agreement on the Claims, even though they are obligated to take measures to resolve the dispute in accordance with the interpretation of the procedures, such as diplomatic protections

2) The Constitutional Court rendered that “In the event there is an interpretation dispute between the two countries as to whether the victims of the violation or the victims of the nuclear injury have been extinguished by the claim agreement” in the Decision 2006Hun-Ma788 Decided August 30, 2011 and the same day, the Court determined that “In the event there is a conflict of interpretation between the two countries as to whether the claims for compensation by the victims of the violation or the victims of the nuclear injury have been extinguished by the claim agreement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade shall settle the dispute through the diplomatic channel in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement on the Claim, and in the event the effort to resolve the dispute has been extinguished, the omission that has not been resolved

(i) Relevant domestic judgments

1) In a lawsuit filed by another victim of forced labor against a Japanese company, the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da61381 Decided October 30, 2018 and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da45420 Decided November 29, 2018 recognized the claim for consolation money of the said victims.

The above decisions are based on the premise that the colonial rule of Japanese colonial rule is illegal, and therefore, it is based on the illegal use of forced houses.

2) Meanwhile, in the en banc Decision 2013Da61381 supra, the following Dissenting Opinion was a minority opinion.

In other words, it is clear that Article 2 of the Agreement on Claims is subject to claims against the nationals of the Republic of Korea, the counterpart countries of Japan, and their citizens, so it is difficult to interpret the Agreement on Claims as a treaty in which both Contracting States waive only diplomatic protection rights to each other, regardless of the individual claims of the people, and it is not possible to make a full and final resolution or any argument that is defined in the above provision, even if it is not until the full extinction of individual claims, it is reasonable to interpret that "the exercise of rights by Korean nationals against Japan or Japan is restricted."

In the end, it cannot be said that the individual claim which Korean nationals hold against Japan or Japan does not have been immediately extinguished or abandoned by the agreement of claim, but it is limited to the exercise of the right in a lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 210 (if there are provisional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Under the purpose of securing labor force, the Defendants: (a) took advantage of the deprivation of the Korean Peninsula from the Japanese country to Japan; (b) forced the victims of this case to be forced to work; (c) deprived of their freedom against the will of the victims of this case; and (d) did not pay wages to them properly. Accordingly, the victims of this case suffered serious mental pain; and (d) after having returned to Korea, the victims of this case did not live a normal life due to physical and mental pain until now.

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay the unpaid wages and consolation money for tort to the plaintiffs who are the victims of this case or their successors who comprehensively succeeded to their rights.

3. Determination

A. Interpretation of the agreement on claims

1) Organization of issues

Article 2 Section 1. of the Agreement on Claims provides that "The problem of claims between both Contracting Parties and their nationals is confirmed to be solved fully and finally."

The meaning of the phrase "the right to claim unpaid wages of the victims of this case and the right to claim compensation for damages caused by illegal acts (hereinafter referred to as "the right to claim compensation for damages of the victims of this case") is whether the right to claim compensation can be fully and finally resolved by the agreement on the right to claim compensation, and it will be solved completely and finally." is a matter of the interpretation of the agreement on the right

2) Legal principles on the interpretation of a treaty

A) The interpretation of the Treaty is based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties concluded in 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Vienna Convention”).

Although the Vienna Convention is effective on January 27, 1980 for the Republic of Korea, and on August 1, 1981 for Japan respectively, it is stipulated that the international customary law already formed prior to the entry into force of the Convention is reflected, so even if the Vienna Convention is interpreted, there is no problem of law in interpreting the Vienna Convention.

나) 비엔나협약 제31조(해석의 일반규칙, General rule of interpretation)에 의하면, 조약은 전문 및 부속서를 포함한 조약문의 문맥 및 조약의 대상과 목적에 비추어 그 조약의 문언에 부여되는 통상적 의미에 따라 성실하게 해석하여야 한다(제1항, Atreaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose), 여기에서 조약의 해석상 문맥이라고 할 때에는 조약문 외에 조약의 체결과 관련하여 당사국 사이에 이루어진 그 조약에 관한 합의 등을 포함한다[제2항, The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty; (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty]. 아울러 조약을 해석할 때에는 문맥과 함께 조약의 해석 또는 그 조약규정의 적용에 관한 당사국 사이의 추후의 합의, 조약의 해석에 관한 당사국의 합의를 확정하는 그 조약 적용에 있어서의 추후의 관행 등을 참작하여야 한다[제3항, There shall be taken into account, together with the context: (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation; (c)any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties].

그리고 비엔나협약 제32조(해석의 보충적 수단, Supplementary means of interpretation)에 의하면, 제31조의 적용으로부터 도출되는 의미를 확인하기 위해 또는 제31조에 따라 해석하면 의미가 모호해지거나 또는 애매하게 되는 경우, 명확하게 불합리하거나 또는 부당한 결과를 초래하는 경우에는 그 의미를 결정하기 위해 조약의 준비작업 또는 조약 체결 시의 사정을 포함한 해석의 보충적 수단에 의존할 수 있다[Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable].

(iii) the facts of recognition

A) On February 15, 1952, the Korean side presented 8 items to the Japanese side from February 15, 1952. Since then, 8 items have not been discussed until the fourth single-day conference due to the claims for reverse claims in Japan, differences in opinions on the issues of Dokdo Island and Peace Line, political situation of both countries, etc.

B) There was a substantial discussion on eight items from the fifth single-time session, and there was a discussion as follows in the fifth single-time session:

① On May 10, 1961, at the 13th session of the subcommittee on the general claim of the first session of the first session of the first session of the first session of the first session, the Republic of Korea demanded the compensation for individuals damaged for compulsory performance in relation to the above paragraph 5 (the bank rights of Japanese corporations or natural persons in Korea, amounts receivable, compensation money, and other claims) among eight items. Specifically, the term "as to demand compensation for all victims, including dependent persons, wounded, dead, missing persons, and military personnel and military personnel," "as to demand compensation for the mental and physical suffering of the requisitioned victims caused by compulsory mobilization of other people." Accordingly, the Japanese counterpart explained to the effect that "the compensation for individual damages is demanded by the victim of the Republic of Korea," "the victim of the Republic of Korea as the victim or individual," and "the nature of the compensation measures to be taken in Korea."

② In response to the demand for personal damage compensation by the Republic of Korea, the Japanese side was able to respond to the demand of the Republic of Korea by demanding a specific number of persons or evidentiary materials of a disease suspected of requisition, or presenting individual resolution methods after the restoration of their diplomatic relationships.

③ On May 16, 1961, at the 5th Session of Claim Committee, discussions in paragraphs (1) through (5) of the 8 items have been underway until the session is interrupted due to military changes. However, the difference in fundamental perception was confirmed and failed to reach a substantial approach to opinions.

C) After the 6th Session was commenced on October 20, 1961, political approach was sought in determining that detailed discussions on claims only take place at the time, and that resolution was required. The agreement on the right of indemnity was concluded on June 22, 1965 out of the 7th Session following the following negotiation process.

① On December 15, 1961, at the 7th session of the subcommittee on the general claim of the Korean Preliminary Session, the Korean side demanded USD 1.22,00,000 for the compensation for eight items on the part of Japan, and calculated USD 200 per survival person, USD 1,650 per deceased person, USD 364,00 per injured person, calculated on the basis of USD 200,000 per each deceased person, and USD 20,000 per injured person ($ 30%).

② At the credit conference around March 1962, it was confirmed that there was a significant difference between USD 700,000,000,000,000 and USD 20,000,000,000, which is the net payment amount on the part of the Republic of Korea, and KRW 70,000,000,000, which is the net payment amount on the part of the Japanese side.

③ Under such circumstances, the Japanese side suggested that the legal relation and factual relations should be strictly followed if the net repayment of the claim is made from the beginning, and that the amount is less than that which the Republic of Korea would be unable to accept, and that the amount should be raised to a considerable extent and the waiver of the claim on behalf of the Republic of Korea by taking the form of economic cooperation with or without compensation. Accordingly, in order to solve the position or problem that the claim should be paid as the net repayment from the perspective of the settlement of the claim, the Korean side argued that it should be resolved within the framework of the settlement of the claim in order to solve the problem from the perspective of the large country, and then, it would be proposed that the solution should be made by way of indicating only the total amount without separately indicating the amount.

④ At the time of Q Q, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy entered Japan into a meeting over two occasions with the first and second external credit in Japan. On November 12, 1962, the Minister agreed on the principle of the resolution to recommend both governments as to the amount of claims, payment tax items, conditions, etc. of the issue of claims at the time of the second session of Q Q. After the specific process of mediation, the agreement was reached on April 3, 1965 on the resolution of claims between V and Japan, which had been the U minister as of April 3, 1965, and between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Japan.

D) On July 5, 1965, the Agreement between the Republic of Korea and Japan, which was published by the Government of the Republic of Korea on July 5, 1965, states, “The content of our property and claims extinguished by the provisions concerning the resolution of problems relating to property and claims, all of the claims in the 8 large-scale claims, which have been initially presented by the Republic of Korea, will be extinguished. Therefore, the claims in the 8 large-scale claims, which are all requested by the first one, will be extinguished.

E) On August 8, 1965, the XY Minister made a statement to the effect that USD 300 million free of charge under Article 1 of the Claim Agreement has a substantial nature of compensating the damaged people.

F) After the conclusion of the Agreement on Claims, Korea enacted the Act on the Compensation for Claims, the Act on the Report of Claims, the Compensation for Claims Act, the Act on the Support of Victims in 2007 and 2010, and paid compensation to forced mobilization victims. Examining the details of consolation benefits paid until September 2016 through the decision of the Support Committee (including the decision of the Support Committee for Overseas Mobilization Victims before and after the Pacific War), such as the compulsory investigation into force of overseas mobilization during the 2010, and the victims of forced overseas mobilization, etc., the amount of consolation benefits paid until September 2016 would be KRW 360 billion, missing consolation benefits, KRW 102 billion, KRW 522 billion, KRW 50,000,000,000 per capita of medical allowances, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each of the evidence mentioned above, the substantial fact in this court, and the purport of the whole pleading

4) Whether the victims of the instant case's claim for damages constitutes "the right to claim full and final resolution" under the agreement on the claim.

In light of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the facts as seen earlier and the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, and the text of the Agreement on Claims and the Understanding Documents thereon, the parties’ intent inferred at the time of conclusion or conclusion of the agreement on claims, and follow-up measures following the conclusion of the agreement on claims, it is reasonable to view the victims’ right to claim damages constitutes “the right to claim damages entirely and finally resolved in accordance with the agreement on claims.”

A) According to the language and text of the Agreement on Claims, both Korea and Japan, as well as both countries, have been the subject of the Agreement on Claims and Claims against the other country and its citizens, and it is clear that the subject of claims under the Agreement on Claims and Claims include claims for requisition.

(1) "The full text of the Agreement on Claims" refers to the property of both countries and their nationals and to the two countries.

Article 2 Section 1 of the Convention provides that "The Contracting States confirm that the issues concerning the property, rights, and profits of both Contracting States and their people (including corporations), as well as claims between both Contracting States and their people, should be resolved completely and finally, including those provided for in Article 4 (a) of the Treaty of Peace."

② The minutes of the Agreement on Claims (I) stipulate that with respect to Article 2 above, "the matters concerning the property, rights and interests of the two countries and their nationals which have been completely and finally resolved as referred to in Article 1.1 of the same Article, and their claims between the two countries and their people shall include all claims belonging to the scope of "the 1st century (the 8th items in the lawsuit)" which are submitted from the Korean side at the 1st Session, and therefore, no assertion may be made regarding the 8th century."

③ As seen earlier, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention explicitly states that, in principle, it shall be faithfully interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning granted in the language and text of the relevant treaty.

B) In light of the developments leading up to the conclusion of the Agreement on Claims, a claim for requisition included in the subject matter of a claim under the Agreement on Claims includes a claim for damages by a victim of compulsory mobilization. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that economic cooperation funds under Article 1 of the Agreement on Claims include, in substance, the nature as compensation for resolution of legal relationship under Article 2, including such a claim for damages, in its nature, and that both countries have recognized it as such at the time of the conclusion

(1) On May 10, 1961, at the 13th session of the subcommittee on the general claim of the first session of the first session of the first session of the first session of the first session of the first session, the Republic of Korea demanded 'compensation for all requisitioned persons, including those who have been injured, dead, missing, and military personnel', 'compensation for mental and physical distress of the requisitioned who have been caused by forced mobilization of another citizen', and requested 'compensation for mental and physical distress of the requisitioned person who has been caused by forced mobilization of another citizen' on December 15, 1961. In addition, on December 15, 1961, the 7th session of the first session of the first session of the first session of the first session, the Republic of Korea calculated the amount of compensation for damage caused by forced mobilization in detail at USD 364 million, including it, and requested 1.22 billion dollars for the total amount of compensation for eight items.

(2) At the time of the fifth single conference, the Republic of Korea claims the amount of such demand as the State.

Although Japan argued that the compensation for the victim's individual would be a measure in Korea, Japan demanded specific number of persons or evidential materials of the target and requisition and had experienced difficulties in negotiations.

(3) For this reason, Japan proposed a method of raising the amount of money to a considerable level and giving up the right to claim compensation instead of the amount of money by taking the form of economic cooperation with or without compensation on the ground that it is difficult to prove, and Korea also proposed a method of indicating the total amount without classifying it by item.

④ Since June 22, 1965 through the specific process of mediation, Article 1 of the Economic Cooperation Fund was determined with respect to the grant of economic cooperation funds, and Article 2 of the Agreement on Claim for Resolution of Legal Relationship was concluded.

C) Of the eight items of the 1st century, it is difficult to see that the term "compensation" is used only for the term "compensation" in relation to the claim for requisition, and the term "compensation" is not used. However, even if both sides appear in the negotiation process, it does not seem that the two governments classified "compensation" and "compensation" in a strict sense, and it does not mean "compensation" under international law as it does not necessarily mean "compensation" under domestic law. Further, considering that paragraph (5) includes not only the outstanding amount, compensation, and other claims, but also the scope of "other claims," the scope of "other claims," it does not exclude the right to claim compensation for the victims of forced mobilization from the application of the Agreement on Claims. Rather, the two countries have different positions as to the illegality of Japanese colonial rule, and therefore, have no intention to clearly define the right to claim compensation for damages from Japan in relation to the conclusion of the Agreement on Compensation for Damages from Japan.

D) In addition, after the conclusion of the agreement on claims, Korea enacted the Act on the Compensation for Claims, Act on the Report of Claims, Act on the Compensation for Claims, Act on the Support for Victims in 2007 and Act on the Support of Victims in 2010 to pay compensation for forced mobilization victims. This premises that the right to claim compensation for victims of forced mobilization is included in the scope of the agreement on claims. In addition, in 2005, the public-private joint committee expressed an official opinion that "the right to claim compensation for victims of forced mobilization was comprehensively considered to USD 300 million, unlike the above-mentioned problem." In 2009, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade tried to confirm the official opinion that the forced mobilization is included in USD 300 million for victims of forced mobilization without compensation.

E) Recognizing that the instant victims’ right to claim damages is included in the agreement on claims, since USD 300 million, which was concluded by the agreement on claims, is less than the amount required by the Republic of Korea at the time, and there is a significant difference in the amount required by the Republic of Korea at the time, it cannot be deemed that the instant victims’ right to claim damages is included in the agreement on claims. The assertion that the instant victims’ right to claim damages cannot be deemed included in the agreement on claims, based on the current standard that Korea approaches Japan from the national income per capita, committed an error in determining the past agreement on claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan, which had been in the former position of backward countries at the time, and the foreign currency acquired by the agreement on claims, which the Republic of

5) The meaning of the phrase "wholly and finally resolved"

In light of the following circumstances and legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the meaning of "wholly and finally resolved in a claim agreement" is not that the Contracting States waive the right to diplomatic protection for each other, but that it limits the exercise of the right to individual claims by 'litigation'.

A) Article 2 Section 1. of the Agreement on Claims provides that "The issue of claims shall be fully and finally resolved," and as seen earlier, considering that not only the issue of claims between countries and countries but also the claims of one citizen and their citizens against the other country and their citizens are the subject of an agreement, construing the issue of claims to the effect that the issue of claims is completely and finally resolved not only between the Contracting States but also among their nationals, it is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language and text, and it does not mean that the Contracting States should not exercise their diplomatic protection rights.

B) Since the conclusion of the initial claim agreement, Japan has taken the position that both Contracting States would waive their diplomatic protection rights, rather than the extinguishment of individual claims by both Contracting States under the agreement on claims. This was derived from taking the position that Japan’s government given up its diplomatic protection rights with respect to the re-claimed claims in order to avoid its obligation to compensate for its own nationals.

However, as seen earlier, the Republic of Korea from the beginning presented eight items of the 1st century, demanded compensation for the victims of forced mobilization, and took the position that distribution of the funds for claims is entirely a matter of domestic law, and such position was maintained even at the time of the conclusion of the agreement on claims.

In light of this, it cannot be deemed that the genuine intent of both countries at the time of the Agreement on Claims was the same as the waiver of diplomatic protection rights. ② After 2007, the Japanese Supreme Court ruled that the waiver of claims through the so-called "H judgment" can be rejected as a claim against Japan and Japanese nationals as a "non-refence right similar to the natural obligation" which is similar to the "natural obligation."

(C) Under international law, with respect to the issue of compensation before and after the end of the World War, the so-called "General Settlement Agreement" is one of the methods for the prevention of international disputes, which is generally accepted under customary international law at the time of conclusion of the agreement on claims. At the time of the conclusion of the agreement on claims, at least 20 collective settlement agreements were concluded from the end of the Second World War to the end of 1995 (Z&Aeds.), and "International Claims: Z&Aeds." (Zir & AAeds.), the "International Claims." (1975) and the "Convention on the Settlement of Claims" adopted in the United Kingdom of Swedenia (1975) and the "Convention on the Settlement of Claims for Compensation concluded between Japan and Japan."

Such a collective handling agreement is a method in which the state comprehensively concludes an issue of compensation, including the individual's right to claim, and thus, if the State has received compensation or compensation from the other party under the collective handling agreement, the individual's right to claim against the other party shall be deemed extinguished. The same applies to the case where the funds were not actually used for the compensation of the injured party (see the judgment of the International Court of Justice, e.g., Supreme Court of Justice, Feb. 3, 2012), even if the funds were not actually used for the purpose of compensation to the injured party (see the judgment of the case where the International Court of Justice, e.g., the State, Germany v. item 1: Grece, e.g., the case where Grecece is intercom).

② The Agreement on Claim is a treaty to resolve the compensation for claims of the Republic of Korea and its citizens in a lump sum, and constitutes an agreement to deal with claims en bloc. The Constitutional Court en banc Decision 95Hun-Ma161 Decided November 28, 1996 held that “the Agreement on Claim” was concluded in cases where the Republic of Korea received free loans and loans from Japan, and thus, it is limited to the limitation in a lump sum to prevent the exercise of all civilian claims, including claims for compensation of victims injured before August 15, 1945, as the claimant, except as otherwise provided for in Article 2(2) of the Agreement on Claim. In light of the nature of the Agreement on Claim Settlement, it is difficult to interpret that the Agreement on Claim, regardless of individual claims, is a treaty to give up only diplomatic protection of both Contracting States.

D) As seen earlier, the Republic of Korea enacted the Claims Compensation Act, 2007, and the Victims Support Act, etc. after concluding the Claims Agreement, and paid compensation to forced mobilization victims. This is a result of the limitation that Korean nationals exercise their right to claim against Japan or Japanese nationals through litigation pursuant to the Claims Agreement, and the Republic of Korea took legislative measures for the purpose of compensating for such limitation. If the Contracting States were to have waived only diplomatic protection rights to each other through the Claims Agreement, it is difficult for the Republic of Korea to find reasons to take such measures.

E) The method leading up to the "fully and final resolution" of Article 2.1. of the Agreement on Claims is realized by the phrase "no assertion can be made" as stipulated in Article 2.3. Since the agreement on claims does not directly provide for the waiver or extinguishment of the individual's right to claims under the language, it is difficult to deem that the individual's right to claims has been completely extinguished or renounced under the agreement on claims. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to interpret the agreement on claims as a treaty in which both Contracting States have agreed to waive only the diplomatic protection rights of the State, regardless of the individual's right to claims. Accordingly, the meaning of the phrase "for this reason, it is difficult to interpret as a treaty in which the two Contracting States have agreed to give up only the diplomatic protection rights of the State." Ultimately, the meaning of the phrase "the exercise of rights by Korean nationals against Japan or Japan is limited."

(b) mutual contact between international law and domestic law;

1) Intersections between international law and domestic law

As the two norms of international law and domestic law conflict with each other in this case, the relationship between the normative dimension should not be considered. In other words, the status of the international community subject to the regulation of international law is a combination of individual sovereignty in the way of separation, and the lack of centralized legislative, administrative, and judicial institutions unlike the domestic law, when the domestic courts deal with international law, it is necessary to interpret and process it as a legal system regulating the international community that differs from that of the domestic society.

(ii) the application of Article 27 of the Vienna Convention;

A) Relevant legal principles

1) First of all, Article 26 of the Vienna Convention (Pacta sunt svera) is effective in all the treaties.

It is also stipulated that the parties should be bound and faithfully performed by the Parties (including redelivery, redelivery in service, see e.g., e., e., e. Domination and Muschina).

2) 이어 비엔나협약 제27조 전단은, 어느 당사국도 조약의 불이행에 대한 정당화의 방법으로 그 국내법 규정을 원용해서는 아니 된다(A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty)고 규정하고 있다. 여기서 국내법 규정에는 국내 성문법뿐만 아니라 관습법 등 불문법, 국내 사법부의 판결, 결정 등도 포함되는 일체의 국내적인 법적 사정(domestic legal situation)을 뜻한다. 따라서 가사 극단적으로 조약이 국내적으로 위헌무효가 선언되는 사정이 있다 하더라도 특별한 사정이 없는 한 조약의 국제법적 효력은 손상될 가능성이 없고, 여전히 대한민국은 조약의 준수의무를 부담한다(AC and AD, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 27. International law and observance of treaties), 이러한 규정을 둔 취지는, 조약을 체결한 당사국이 자국 내에서 제정한 법 또는 선고한 판결 등 국내적 법 사정으로 조약이행으로부터 이탈할 수 있다면, 국제질서의 혼란과 이로 인하여 국제평화를 위협하게 되므로 이를 방지하고 평온한 국제질서를 유지하기 위함이라 할 것이다.

B) In the instant case:

Based on the above legal principles, the illegality of food and civil domination and the illegality of requisition for the purpose of this case can be seen as a kind of domestic law interpretation.

일본국을 포함한 어느 나라도 자신들의 식민지배의 불법성을 인정하였다는 자료가 없고 국제법적으로도 그 불법성이 인정된 바가 있다는 자료가 없다. 그 당시 즉 서세 동점(西勢東漸)의 제국주의 시대에 강대국의 약소국 병합이 국제법상 불법이라는 주장은 오늘날 국제사회에서 실정법(lex lata)으로 인정받지 못하는 것이 현실이고, 국제법을 제국주의 침략법이라고 비난한 소련마저도 동유럽 약소국을 강점한 사례 등이 있는 것이다. 가사 일본의 대한제국 병합이 조약 형식을 가장한 강점에 불과하다 하더라도, 그 당시 '식민지배 금지'라는 국제사회의 관행이나 법적 확신(opinio juris)을 보여주는 증거를 찾아볼 수 없는 것이 국제법적 현실인 것이다. 아울러 국제적인 차원에서는 일제의 식민지배가 불법인지는 사법부의 판단과 정치적 선택이 다를 바 없어 법적 판단의 고유한 특색이나 특징이 없고, 오히려 민주사회에서 기능적으로 '정치적 기관'이 더 적합성이 있어 사법자제의 원리가 적용되는 영역이라고 볼 수 있다.

Ultimately, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da61381 Decided October 30, 2018, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da45420 Decided November 29, 2018, which recognized the claim for consolation money of victims of forced requisition, are based on the illegality of food control and the illegality of requisition. Such judgment, etc. is merely a domestic legal interpretation, as seen earlier. This is merely a mere interpretation of the domestic law. Such circumstance alone does not justify the "in respect of the claims, etc., of the victims of this case, which are agreed to compensate or compensate for damages" as a whole without mutual agreement on the legitimacy or illegality of food control.

Therefore, Korea is still bound by the claim agreement as seen earlier in international law.

(iii) the application of the Pesting Principles;

A) Relevant legal principles

According to international law, the term "gold" principle means that a responsible state's organization has made a specific speech or conduct at a later time and is unable to make a speech or conduct inconsistent with or inconsistent with it, or that such contradictory or conflicting speech or conduct does not have the legal effect (the International Court of Justice has rejected the claim in accordance with the principle of the gold Bara (ICC v. Thailand), several times, in which case the Court of Justice has rejected the claim by applying the principle of the gold Bara. Trobia v. Thailand, 1862 I.C. 6, 1862 I.C. 6, L. 33; Fisher's Fisher's (Nor. K.), I.C. 16, 1951, L.138-19).

In addition, the term "explience" in international law is the same as an implied approval expressed by another Party, which can be interpreted as a consent of the other Party, and the term "explience" and "combience" are considered and understood as different aspects of the same system.

B) In the instant case:

Based on the above legal principles, the speaking or behavior contrary to this case constitutes "explience in international law" at least, as it constitutes "explience in international law," such as public health service, agreement with various treaties such as the agreement on claims concluded between Japan and the Republic of Korea, character as a package of agreement on claims settlement, acts related to this case by the authorities of each country (in particular, since the Republic of Korea enacted the Claims Compensation Act after the conclusion of the Agreement on Claims, the Act on the Support of Victims in 2007 and the Act on 2010, and the official opinion expressed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 209).

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, considering such circumstances, accepting the claim of this case may result in the violation of international law, such as Article 27 of the Vienna Convention and the principle of gold counterel.

C. The illegality of compulsory execution and the existence of lawsuit

1) Relevant legal principles

Even if a right is based on a final and conclusive judgment, it should be exercised in good faith and it is not permitted where enforcement based on a judgment becomes an abuse of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da232105, Sept. 21, 2017).

2) In the instant case:

As seen earlier, notwithstanding the domestic circumstances and domestic interpretation in accordance with Article 27 of the Vienna Convention, the effect of a treaty shall remain in force, and compulsory execution in such a case is contrary to the substantive truth, and as seen earlier, the execution of a judgment itself constitutes abuse of rights and the possibility of filing an objection and subject to such provisional disposition.

Although the Supreme Court has strictly judged whether compulsory execution constitutes abuse of rights in domestic law cases, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that compulsory execution of this case satisfies the requirements of abuse of rights, and if there are circumstances, compulsory execution is unlawful, so the plaintiffs' right to claim constitutes a right not to be subject to prosecution.

In 2006Hun-Ma788, 2008Hun-Ma648, the Constitutional Court declared that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade shall make a diplomatic effort in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement on Claim, as seen earlier, and that in the event that such a resolution is satisfy, the said provision shall be referred to international arbitration, etc.

If the damages of the Defendants are realized as a result of a final judgment accepting the claims filed by the Plaintiffs and a compulsory execution, it is evident that such pressure of the international community would lead to the re-procedures of Japan or the ICJ through various channels, such as Article 3 of the Agreement on Claims and the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan, Article 14 of the Convention for the Promotion and Protection of the Freedom of Investment between the Government of Japan and the Government of Japan, the Private International Court, and the public opinion of the international community in the U.S...

On the other hand, in the case of violation of international law such as treaties, the obligation to compensate in an appropriate form is the principle of international law, and the International Court of Justice imposes not only the official intention but also the liability for damages on the country violating the treaty. Even though the high level of uncertainty in international trials is considered, the possibility of losing the Republic of Korea can not be ruled out in light of the above circumstances.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea, in particular, which is the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea, is an object of international arbitration or international trial, thereby causing damage to the trust of the judiciary of Korea. However, if the Arbitration Commission or the Private International Court of Justice judges that a claim agreement, which is a treaty, has been violated by the Republic of Korea, it would be fatally damaged by the trust of the judiciary of Korea, and the consolation as a cultural name of the Republic of Korea, which is the 10th class of the world, falls down on the floor, and still is in a designated academic situation located between the reality of the divided countries and the lecture of the fourth class of the world, and the relationship with Japan, which is one of the representative countries of the Western forces sharing the constitutional value of free democracy, is damaged by the relationship between Japan and the United States of America, which is directly connected with our national security, and ultimately, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of infringing on the security of the Constitution and the 'order in the Constitution' is infringed by the fall of judicial trust.

Furthermore, in addition to the case of forced military service like this case, Japan asserts its sovereignty over the island area in the territory of the Republic of Korea and demands the Court of Private International Law to decide whether to conflict with the Court of Private International Law as to the issue of ‘the assertion of its sovereignty' and ‘the issue of whether to conflict with the Court of Private International Law'. When all or some of these pending issues are submitted to the International Court of Justice, it is clear that the Republic of Korea does not obtain any winning even in all cases, or is damage with the color of international relations even if winning the case, while it is obvious that if the case is lost, it would cause a fatal damage to the national security and national interests.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, in light of such various circumstances, such compulsory execution constitutes abuse of rights as it infringes on the fundamental principles of the Constitution, such as national security and maintenance of order, and eventually, the victims' claim constitutes an inevitable right.

D. Whether fundamental rights are infringed

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 27 (1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have the right to be tried by a judge in accordance with the law" and guarantees the right to be tried by a judge in accordance with the law. Since procedural fundamental rights such as the right to request a trial, as a matter of principle, are of the nature of institutional guarantee, procedural fundamental rights such as the right to request a trial, a relatively broad legislative formation right is recognized in comparison with the case of fundamental rights in the right to freedom (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2003Hun-Ga7, May 26, 2005; Constitutional Court Order 2013Hun-Ba186, Mar. 26, 2015; Constitutional Court Order 2014Hun-Ga7, Jul. 30, 2015).

Meanwhile, fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution may be restricted by law if necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare (Article 37(2) of the Constitution). However, even in the case of restriction, their essential contents may not be infringed (Article 37(2) of the Constitution), treaties concluded and promulgated by the Constitution and generally accepted international laws and regulations have the same effect as domestic laws (Article 6(1)

2) In the instant case:

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs are restricted from exercising their right to claim compensation, etc. for damages by forced mobilization through the 'litigation against the Defendants’ under the Agreement on Claims. Accordingly, this would result in restricting fundamental rights, such as the Plaintiffs’ right to claim a trial.

However, if the plaintiffs can unilaterally exercise their right to claim compensation for damages against the victims through a lawsuit, it would result in conflict with the national security, maintenance of order, and public welfare under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea, like domestic law, respects international peace and human public order by faithfully implementing treaties signed and promulgated under the Constitution (see Articles 6(1) and the Constitution). It is recognized that the restriction of fundamental rights under the Constitution, such as the plaintiffs' right to claim for trial, is for pursuing another constitutional value, such as the national security, maintenance of order, public welfare, and respect for international law, and thus, it is difficult for the Republic of Korea to unilaterally consider that the victims were forced to exercise their right to claim compensation for damages against the victims. (1) In addition, it is difficult for the European Court of Human Rights to consider that the right to claim compensation for damages against the victims under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea was established and its contents and scope as a right to be determined by law, and even if so, it is an inherent limitation under the Convention with the European Court of Human Rights 2014m20.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, for the sake of national security, maintenance of order and public welfare under the Constitution, the right to claim damages of the victims of this case is restricted by a claim agreement that corresponds to a treaty in the status of law.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yang-ho

Judges 00 00

Judges Kim Jong-k

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.