In a case where Gap et al., who were mobilized compulsorily during the course of Japanese occupation and forced "comfort women" to pay consolation money against Japan, the case holding that a series of acts related to Gap et al. cannot be applied to anti-human criminal acts committed in a systematic and systematic range by Japanese expulsion, and Japan has a duty to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the tort committed by Japanese discharged countries.

It is a case in which Gap et al. forced to mobilized during the Japanese occupation and forced "comfort women" to pay consolation money against Japan.

In principle, the sovereign act of the State is exempt from the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea and other countries even if it is based on the customary international law of Japan, so it cannot be deemed that it should be exempted from the exercise of the jurisdiction of other countries without exception if the nation has sovereign rights. In certain cases, a series of acts against the State, etc. violates the international mandatory law as an anti-human act planned and organized by Japan's country, and it is reasonable to view that such acts were committed against the Republic of Korea citizens Gap, etc. within the Korean Peninsula, which was illegal occupation by Japan, even though they were sovereign acts of the State, it cannot be applied to the courts of the Republic of Korea exceptionally, and since it constitutes a method of managing the so-called "comfort women," which is merely an unlawful act of the Republic of Korea before and after the Japanese War, and thus, it constitutes an unlawful act of the Republic of Korea, such as boosting the morale of Japan's morale, reducing the morale of civil petitions and promoting efficient understanding of military personnel, and thus, it constitutes an unlawful act of the Republic of Korea before and after the Japanese War.

Articles 6(1) and 27(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act; Articles 1 and 2 of the Agreement on Economic Cooperation and the Settlement of Matters Concerning Property and Claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan

Plaintiff 1 and 11 others (Attorney Kim Jong-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Japan

October 30, 2020

1. The defendant shall pay 100,000,000 won to each of the plaintiffs.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to orders and notes 1.

1. Basic facts

A. 2) Japanese invasion on the Korean Peninsula, forced mobilization by a shipbuilding and termination of war

1) On August 22, 1910, Japan concluded the Korea-Japan Merger Treaty with the Korean Empire, and controlled the Korean Peninsula through the Korean War Division. Japan caused the Japanese War in 1931, the Japanese War in 1937, and thereby, the East Asian region entered the wartime system. Japan caused the Pacific War in 1941, and electric wires were expanded beyond East Asia to the South-do and the South Pacific Republic of Korea.

2) Around August 1937, in order to resolve the shortage of human resources and materials due to these wars, Japan enacted and promulgated the "National Mobilization Act" on April 1, 1938, and the "National Disciplinary Ordinance" on July 8, 1939, and around November 1941, pursuant to the "Ordinance on National Labor Assistance in the National Youth", it was 30 days for the unmarried women aged between 14 and 25 to 30 days within one year under the "Ordinance on National Labor Assistance in the National Youth". From the end of the 1930s, Japan used the "Special Ordinance on National Labor Assistance in the Korean Peninsula" in various fields, such as news reports, medical services, labor, etc., and the "Special Ordinance on National Labor Assistance in the Korean Peninsula" from 1930s. From 23, 194 to 194, it was 94 to 194, 194.

3) On August 6, 1945, the Pacific War created by Japan was closed after the atomic bomb was projected in Nagaski on the 9th day of the same month, and the first day of the same month and after the first day of the same month, the first day of the 15th day of the same month and the last day of the first day of the United States and the United States of America declared an unconditional air uniform.

B. Note 4) The mobilization process of “comfort women”

1) Establishment of a memorial station in Japan and mobilization of “comfort women”

A) Establishment of a memorial facility

In the incident of injury in 1932, it was the first time that the Japanese Navy was established by the Japanese soldiers due to rapes caused by the Japanese soldiers' death in 1932. After the Japanese War began in full, Japan determined that there was a need for the establishment of a "comfortment" for the sake of the management of soldiers in the military in addition to the expansion of electric wires. This provision provided soldiers with the above mental proposal, thereby boosting the morale of soldiers who want to leave the war at any time and spreading their complaints, and, in particular, it included the intent to reduce the possibility of spreading military secrets by placing the colonial women who may know Japanese language as the "comfort women". From around 1937, the above-mentioned War was established in full time in the Chinese War area, such as the occupation of the Japanese army, and the area of the Japanese army was expanded since 1941, and the South East Asia-Pacific region was established in South Asia-Pacific region.

On September 29, 1937, the Japanese Army revised the "Ethical Rules", which is a goods sales store provision (the "Ethical Rules"), which was enacted on September 48, 1937, to enable the installation of a perjury in the military base (a shop in the military base during the war). On July 18, 1943, the "Ethical Rules for Military Personnel and Military Installations" was the main station above the size in the "Ethical Rules for Military Facilities", and was entrusted with the installation of a special memorial office exclusively for military personnel and military service outside the military base. In the "Ethical Rules for Military Service", the Japanese army established active preventive measures against sexual illness and completed the sanitary facilities of the above military, and entered it into contact with persons other than those designated by the military and those in the region."

B) The mobilization of “comfort women”

Japan mobilized "comfort women in its own territory and in many ways," which was established in the front place of the territory of many countries, using ① assault, intimidation, kidnapping and forced mobilization of women, ② method of regional maintenance, public officials, schools, etc., ③ method of deceiving women, ④ method of entrusting recruitment service to the recruitment service, ⑤ method of entrusting recruitment service providers, ⑤ method of mobilization through the labor spirit, and public exit system, etc.

2) The roles of Japan's countries in the course of transporting "comfort women" and operating "comfort women" stations.

In the process of transferring recruited “comfort women” to outside the Korean Peninsula, the Japanese military headquarters provided convenience to “comfort women” transportation, such as providing convenience to “comfort women,” such as free navigation certificate, and issuing identification cards for overseas movement, or performed the duties of directly transporting “comfort women” to “comfort women,” by Japanese soldiers or Japanese police officers. The management of the comfort women was directly conducted by the Japanese army or by the private business operators entrusted by the Japanese government. In the case of entrusting a private business operator to a private business operator, the Japanese army participated in the installation and management of the comfort women in the manner of determining whether the private business operator begins, installing facilities, opening hours, using charges, the duty of using the comfort women, etc. (However, this is limited only to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, etc. of sexual diseases). In the case of a “comfort women,” the Japanese army, leading to the “comfort women,” or led to the “comfort women” by the Japanese army (military forces).

3) The process of mobilization of the Plaintiff et al. for each individual’s “comfort women” and his life in a memorial facility

A) In 1923, Plaintiff 1 was born in Seongbuk-gun (name 1 omitted) and went to Daegu 19 years of age. On October 1941, 194, Plaintiff 1 recommended that the male male who was 40 years of age and 5 years of age to find and get employed in Seoul. Plaintiff 1 was employed in Seoul and went to self-support from a bad and bad family. Plaintiff 1 was to get employed in Seoul. The place where Plaintiff 1 was employed in the Republic of Korea, and the said Plaintiff was born in the Republic of Korea, and the said Plaintiff was born in the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea. The said Plaintiff became a Japanese military litigation in the Republic of Korea, which was located in Sam River-gu.

Plaintiff 1 was forced by Japanese military of 15 to 16 members on ordinary day, and on weekends and holidays, 5-6 members on ordinary day, and 15-16 members on official holidays, without having been able to properly provide meals with 27 Korean “comfort women” (hereinafter “comfort women”).

B) In 1926, Plaintiff 2 was born in the fleet of 1926 and moved to the steel source, and thereafter was named as “○○○○○○○.” In 1942, Plaintiff 2 was forced by a male who took the uniforms of military personnel on the road during which he was in the heart of 1942. Plaintiff 2 was on the road to the Japanese army located in the Chinese roadside (name 2 omitted).

In many cases, Plaintiff 2 was forced to engage in sexual acts from the Japanese soldiers at least 40 Japanese soldiers a day when he/she received a medical examination from the above-mentioned bill one time a week. In the above-mentioned room, he/she was subject to religious assault from soldiers, and thereby, he/she was suffering from the injury caused by ear-raising and ear.

C) Plaintiff 3 was born at the time of resident stay in 1928. In 1943, the Japanese Gun heard the question of “magrout of her husband and wife.” and in 1943, the Japanese Gun went away from the her mother’s home on the road back to which her mother’s family has been damaged by her mother’s house, and transferred a draft document stating the name of Plaintiff 3, and went back to the her mother’s home. The Plaintiff 3 heard the words “Igre to be fluored,” and went to leave the direction on the back seat of the truck with no knowledge of anywhere.

Plaintiff 3 moved to the Chinese heart after the name of “△△△△△△△”, and had 7 to 8 Japanese military units living a "comfort women" relative to the Japanese military group on a regular basis at the Japanese military depository room located in Switzerland, wherein he had sexual disease prevention vaccination. The Japanese military units regularly conducted a medical examination and conducted a medical examination of the Japanese military units, and the Japanese women, i.e., e., the denial of Japanese military executive officers, were managed as a whole.

Plaintiff 3 was assaulted to the extent that the head of the soldiers did not properly go to the military. Plaintiff 3, at the time, was sexually opened with the ten major groups of the time, and frequently opened a fry and fying the body, and Japanese soldiers did not move to another person by the Plaintiff 3, and the Japanese soldiers were abandoned in child birth and attempted to die.

D) Plaintiff 4 was born in Busan in July 1927, 1927, and was forced to attract the male who is not aware of the heart to China around July 1942.

After having arrived at the Chinese roadside (name 3 omitted), Plaintiff 4 was confined in the accommodation in which the decline was installed, and the name was changed to “Maggugggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg site.

결국 원고 4는 매독이라는 성병을 앓게 되었고 606호 주6) 주사 를 정기적으로 맞아도 잘 낫지 않자 수은을 사용하는 극단적인 치료를 받게 되었는데 그 치료 이후로는 임신을 할 수 없게 되었다. 원고 4는 위안소에서 탈출하다가 일본군에 의하여 위안소로 다시 끌려와 온몸이 피투성이가 될 때까지 폭행을 당하기도 하였다. 이때 귀를 얻어맞아 귓병을 앓게 되었으나 치료를 받지 못하여 귀가 잘 들리지 않게 되었다.

E) In 1924, Plaintiff 5 was born in the Gannamyang in 1924 and 1941, the Gandong-gu proposed that “Is to enter China-do factory” was “Is to enter China-do factory,” the Plaintiff 5 was born in the Gannam-do and became a Chinese-do factory in China with the knowledge that I would go to China-do and became a factory in China.

After the Joseon Women including Plaintiff 5 arrived in China, the said Plaintiff came to be a superior to the Chinese black shot (name 4 omitted) (hereinafter referred to as the “shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shots”).

F) Plaintiff 6 was born in Bupyeongyang in 1922, and was born in 20 years of age at the age of 20, according to the recruitment plan of the “comfort women”, the Plaintiff 6 was released to the area of the Chinese Black Myeng (Syengsung 5 omitted) and was admitted to the lower court. The custodian of the instant lawsuit was a Joseon who was a Joseon but was a Japanese soldier, and all of the users of the instant lawsuit were Japanese soldiers. Japanese soldiers entered the “mark” from the manager of the instant lawsuit, and entered the “comfort women” in the form of calculating the “comfort women” by bringing the “comfort women” to the manager. Japanese soldiers received a medical examination from the Japanese army first time in Japan, and were punished by body from the manager, etc. if the soldiers were to have less military personnel or did not meet the sexual desire of the Japanese military forces.

During the “comfort women’s life, Plaintiff 6 was pregnant, and Plaintiff 6 returned to the office of collection (title 5 omitted) to the officers of the Japanese military branch. Plaintiff 6 was left to China since he could not raise his child after the childbirth, and he was forced to leave it to the Chinese government. In addition, Plaintiff 6 came to the office of the court below for the settlement of the place of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest of the rest. Plaintiff

G) Plaintiff 7 was born at Asan City in 1929, and was married to avoid compulsory use on November 1943, but the husband was forced to be drafted on the day following the marriage, but the husband was forced to be forced by the Japanese deceased on the day after the marriage. After the Plaintiff 7’s movement from 2 to 3 days to her husband, the Plaintiff 7 went to Busan Metropolitan City, and received military uniforms from her husband, and then began to work as a "comfort father" relative to the Japanese soldiers who were 20 to 30 persons per day. The Plaintiff 7 went to a lower military defense room but went to a military base, and went to a permanent life in that country. In the above draft, the Plaintiff 7 went to a knife, spathe, spaced, or spacedly weapons, and came to a new military unit due to the death.

H) On February 1945, Plaintiff 8 was born in the Chungcheongbukcheon in 1930, and around February 194, 1945, Plaintiff 8 was born and went back to Japan on the horse that “I became going to study in Japan as a part of a day.” They were mobilized as a factory for the military supplies of the ▽▽▽▽△△△ military aircraft, and were accommodated therein. At this time, Japanese soldiers were forced to live the “comfort women”.

I) Plaintiff 9 was born in the Ganman-gun of North Korea (name 6 omitted) in 1926, and was born in the Ganman-gun of North Korea (name 7 omitted) in 1943, and was towed by the Japanese soldiers to the Banman-gun’s house, saying that the Japanese military personnel are frightening women, and that they are frightened in the house of her husband, and that they are frightened by the Eastern-gun’s house, and that they were frightened by the Ganman-gun’s house. The Japanese military personnel were frighted in the above bill, and Plaintiff 9 was frightened from that point.

(j) The deceased non-party 1 was born at Adong-si in 1929, and was forced by the deceased soldiers in Japan in around 1943, and led to the Japanese north Sea. The deceased non-party 1 knew at that place that he had to change the name " chip" and to go to a factory. However, 100 women living in the military as organization in the military area, but they were sexual assaulted several times by her brut, brud and brud, etc., and they were sexual assaulted by soldiers, and suffered serious assault from soldiers.

(k) Plaintiff 11 was born in Daegu in 1927. around October 194, 194, and was urged by Japanese soldiers to find employment. Although Plaintiff 11 refused this, Plaintiff 11 was forced to attract it to China’s Synishment, it was forced to live an “comfort women” of Japanese soldiers.

l) Plaintiff 12 was born in the Southern Navy in 1922, and around 1938, he was forced to attract the Japanese soldiers from the seaside to the Nana, Japan. From this point of view, Plaintiff 12 sent them to the Nana, China, and forced the Japanese soldiers to live together with the 20 "comfort women" in the front of the Japanese army located in the country. On the legal holiday, Plaintiff 12 was forced to live with several Japanese soldiers. The Bana was managed by the female military forces in Japan, and the Mana was tried to live with the Manae in the case where the Manas escape from the Mana.

(m) Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) were assigned one room at the group accommodation called the catum, and received an inspection by the catum and the Japanese military forces, including whether they were suffering from sexual illness once a week. In the event of a catum disease, other diseases could not be treated at all, but were isolated or abandoned.

Meal was very poor to remove grass, or was boomed by mixing dice et tete et tete, and soldiers were steing out old military uniforms. In the day, soldiers became subject to sexual desire of soldiers several times a day, and they were found more and more, and they did not properly respond to their demands, assault was committed without fault.

In the case of the manager, the manager supervised the “comfort military register” to prevent the escape, and the “comfort military register” committed assault against the “comfort military personnel,” if the “comfort military personnel’s sexual demands were not properly taken place. In the event that the “comfort military register” runs away, the Japanese military forces were scriptive or rewinged to the “comfort military register,” and the remaining “comfort military register,” if there was a successful “comfort military register,” the surveillance of the “comfort military register,” was more strict.

The plaintiff et al. failed to receive particular wages from the above-mentioned administrator, etc., and even if they received money, it was a small amount of money without meaning.

C. The life of the plaintiff et al. after the previous

1) As a previous one, the Japanese army set up the “comfort women” as it was in the bill, and dismissed the “comfort women.” The Plaintiff et al., even without being aware of whether they were previous, had to have been able to undergo a battle in the situation of warfare, or to live in the lives of the human body. Most of the Plaintiff et al., left their lives in China and Japan, etc.

2) The Plaintiff et al. was unable to enter into a marriage, or was unable to engage in a smooth marital life even through marriage, and even if they were to return to high her will, they were unable to properly lead a social life due to difficult difficulties for their parents and family members to have flicked themselves. They could not express themselves about their past history, and there were many cases where they were asking their husbands or their children for the past about the “comfort women” life. After marriage, the Plaintiff et al. was able to ask their husbands for the “flick women before marriage.”

3) The Plaintiff et al., et al. suffered from a bodily injury or disease, or aftermath of a sexual disease, thereby undermining health. In addition to physical pain, the Plaintiff et al. suffered from serious mental pain, and did not have a proper occupation and impoverably live in poverty instead of being able to adapt to the normal social life.

(d) International agreements, etc. entered into by Japan around the previous time;

(i)the Convention on the Law and Customs of Land;

1907년 헤이그 평화회의에서 ‘육전의 법 및 관습에 관한 협약’(Convention with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 이하 ‘헤이그 육전협약’이라고 한다)이 체결되었는데, 일본제국은 1911. 12. 13. 위 협약을 비준하였다. 위 협약 제3조는 “부속서상의 의무를 위반한 교전당사자는 손해를 배상하여야 한다. 교전당사자는 개별전투원의 모든 행위에 대하여 책임을 부담한다(A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces).”라고 규정하고 있으며, 부속서 제46조에는 “가족의 명예와 권리는 존중되어야 한다(Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected).”라고 규정되어 있다.

(ii) an international treaty to restrain the sale and purchase of anti-divers;

In the International Convention for the Sovereign Trade (International Convention for the International Convention) ratified by Japan's country in 1925, "any person who solicits, solicits, or induces a minor female or female for the purpose of inspiring another person to fulfill his/her desire shall be punished even if he/she has consented thereto, even if each act constituting an offense has been committed by another country."

(iii) agreements and agreements on the prohibition of human trafficking between women and children;

On September 30, 1921, the International Federation adopted the International Convention on the Prohibition of Human traffic of Women and Children (hereinafter “International Convention”), and Japan ratified the said Convention in around 1925 (Provided, That in this case, the said Convention was reserved in the application to the region of the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan area, and Dong-do, which is the place of origin). According to the said Convention, the said Convention, a minor female (under the age of 21) for the purpose of sexual industry to satisfy another’s desire is an offense even if the parties consent to such an act, even if there is a consent.

In addition, the International Federation adopted the "Labor Convention" on September 25, 1926, and announced it on March 9, 1927. The Convention defines the "Labor" as "the status or condition of a person who is entitled to exercise some or all rights in connection with his/her ownership," and stipulates the prohibition of old-age, old-age trade, prohibition of labor trade, and prohibition of forced labor, which has been developed into international customary law.

4) The Convention on the Compulsory Labor

The International Labor Organization (ILO) adopted the “Compulsory Labor Convention” (ILO Convention 29) in 1930, and Japan ratified the said Convention on November 21, 1932. According to the said Convention, even if compulsory labor is excessive until it is abolished within a short period of time, women should be entirely excluded, and the period and time of labor is limited, substantial remuneration and industrial accidents are compensated, and healthy conditions are guaranteed.

5) The former Criminal Code of Japan

Article 226 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 45 of Japan, 1907, hereinafter “Defendant’s former Criminal Act”) which applies to the Korean Peninsula in accordance with the Korea-Japan Merger Treaty (hereinafter “Korea-Japan”) provided for “the crime of kidnapping, inducement, and trading for the purpose of overseas transport” and “the crime of kidnapping, inducement, and trading for the purpose of overseas transport”

E. The defendant's establishment

After the Pacific War, the Japanese Constitution was promulgated on November 3, 1946, and the current defendant was established.

(f) Matters on war issues between the Republic of Korea and the defendant before;

1) Conclusion of the Liber Francco Treaty

On September 8, 1951, the United States and the defendant, including the United States, the United Kingdom, etc. after the Pacific War, entered into the Peace Treaty (hereinafter referred to as the "Mran Francco Treaty") on September 8, 1951. Article 4 (a) of the Treaty provides that "The disposal of the property of the defendant and the people in the area provided for in Article 2 of the Treaty including the Republic of Korea, the claims against the governing authority and the people of the said area, the property of the above area, the property of the governing authority and the people of the said area, and the claims against the defendant and the people of the above area, shall be governed by special agreements between the defendant and the governing authority of the said area."

(ii) the conclusion of treaties and annexed agreements to promote national correction between the Republic of Korea and the defendant;

On June 22, 1965, after the Convention on Property and Claims was concluded between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the defendant on June 22, 1965, "Agreement on the Settlement of Disputes and Economic Cooperation between the Republic of Korea and Japan concerning Property and Claims (hereinafter "Agreement on Claim") was concluded." Article 1 of the Agreement on Claim provides that "the defendant shall provide 300 million US dollars free of charge and make loans of 200 million US dollars over 10 years in the Republic of Korea" and Article 2 of the Agreement on Claim shall state that "The two Contracting States shall include the property, rights, and interests of both Contracting States and their nationals (including corporations) and claims between the Contracting States and their nationals on September 8, 195."

The Agreement on Claims was ratified by the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on August 14, 1965, was ratified by the Convention on the Rights of Claims, was promulgated in both countries around that time, and came into force on December 18, 1965 by exchanging the ratification on November 18, 1965.

(iii) Korea’s measures following the Agreement on Claims.

The Republic of Korea enacted the Act on the Operation and Management of Funds for Claims on February 19, 1966 to determine the basic matters for the use of funds paid under the Agreement on Claims, and subsequently, in order to provide for matters necessary for the accurate evidence and data of the large-day private claims subject to compensation, the Act on the Report of Civil Claims on January 19, 197 (hereinafter “the Act on the Report of Claims”). The report under the Act on the Report of Claims was enacted on January 19, 197, excluding those who had resided in Japan from August 15, 1947 to June 22, 1965, and died before August 15, 1945 by the defendant among those who had been called or drafted as military personnel, military personnel, or labor personnel, and died of before August 15, 1945.

G. The defendant's official discourse

On August 4, 1993, the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs announced the following discourses:

As to the so-called "comfort women" issue included in the main text, the Government has been going to conduct an investigation in December of the year, but its results have been arranged and announced. As a result of this investigation, it was recognized that there have been a lot of "comfort women" established over a long-term and broad area. The above bill was established at the request of the military authorities at the time, and the old military directly or indirectly participated in the installation, management, and transfer of "comfort women". The solicitation of "comfort women" was mainly entrusted by the business entity who received the request of the military, but there were many cases against the will of the women, such as obsence, and strong pressure. Moreover, it was revealed that there were many concerns about this issue in Japan, such as how our history and unconstitutionality, and how much of these questions were resolved by the Japanese government, and that it was difficult for the Japanese government to take into account the issue of ‘comfort women' and thus, it was a matter of interest in the past.

(h) Additional Measures by Korea and the Defendant

1) On June 11, 1993, Korea enacted the "Act on the Support of Livelihood Stability for the Japanese Army for the Japanese Army" and began to pay the victims of "comfort women" subsidies for livelihood stability.

2) On August 31, 1994, the Defendant expressed his position to seek for the creation, etc. of the Asian Women's Development Fund at a non-government level, not a government member, through the "General Domna (Domna City in Mountain)" of the "General Domna (Domna), the Defendant government can pay individual consolation money or settlement money to the victims of "comfort women" in the military from a humanitarian perspective on the humanitarian responsibility for the harm of the honor and dignity of the victims.

3) On January 2005, Korea made public some documents related to the Agreement on Claim. On August 26, 2005, Korea presented official opinions to the effect that “The Agreement on Claim was not a negotiation for claiming compensation for colonial rule in Japan, but rather for resolving the relationship between financial and private claims between the two countries based on Article 4 of the Convention on the Scisco, and that it cannot be deemed that the Agreement on Claim was resolved by the Japanese Government and the military, and that there was no legal responsibility of the Japanese government on the part of the Japanese government on the anti-human tort, including the issue of the "comfort women" in the military of Japan, and that the problem of Koreans and the victim of the first issue were not included in the Agreement on Claim.” The above official opinion contains the following official opinions.

At the time of the ○○ Han-day negotiation contained in the main text, the Korean Government demanded political compensation based on “the historical damage caused thereby,” and such demand should be considered to have been reflected in the computation of free capital between the two countries. The free payment of KRW 300 million received from the Defendant Government through the ○○ Agreement ought to be comprehensively considered, such as personal property rights (insurance, deposits, etc.), claims held by the Korean Government as the State, and funds of the nature of solving the problem of forced mobilization compensation. The agreement on claims is not the amount of each item of claims but rather the amount of each item of claims, but rather the amount of each item of claims determined by political negotiation, and thus it is difficult to estimate the total amount of receipt by each item of claims. However, the government has the intention to use a considerable amount of free funds received for the relief of the victims of forced mobilization. However, in view of the intent of protecting the wounded at the time of compensation in 075.

I. Agreement on the issue of “comfort women” in the Japanese military in 2015

1) On December 28, 2015, the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Defendant Government announced that the following agreements were reached with respect to the victims of “comfort women” in the Japanese army through the Diplomatic Council Joint Diplomatic Council.

From this perspective, the Japanese Government is responsible for the issue of “comfort” included in the main text. ① The issue of “comfort” is the issue of criticism of the majority of women in the military at the time. From this point of view, the Japanese Government shall be held responsible for the issues of “comfort”. The Japanese Government shall, as a general interest in Japan, once again with “comfort women,” and shall express the mind of the crime and anti-comfort with the mind of the deceased. ② The Japanese Government shall be able to address the issues of “comfort women” under the Japanese Government’s budget. More specifically, the Japanese Government shall establish a foundation with the aim of supporting the “comfort women” portion of the Japanese Government, and shall work together with the Japanese Government to address the problems of “comfort women” portion of the Japanese Government, and shall work together with the Japanese Government’s final decision to address the problems of “comfort women’s honor and dignity” portion of the Japanese Government, and shall work together with the Japanese Government’s final decision to address the problems of “com for the Japanese Government.”

2) On July 28, 2016, the Reconciliation Foundation was established by using the full amount of money contributed with the Defendant’s budget, and some of the contributions were paid to each applicant out of the surviving victims or surviving families of the surviving victims.

(j) Determination or registration of a person eligible for livelihood stability support under the Victim’s Victims Act by the plaintiff, etc.

The plaintiff et al. was determined and registered as a person eligible for livelihood stability support by the Minister of Gender Equality and Family after deliberation by the Deliberation Committee under the Act on the Victims of Written Victims from 1993 to 2001.

(k) Death of some plaintiffs, etc. and partial lawsuit acceptance;

During the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff 1 died on June 8, 2014; Plaintiff 2 on July 23, 2017; Plaintiff 6 on December 5, 2018; Plaintiff 7 on July 10, 2016; Plaintiff 8 on February 14, 2018; Plaintiff 1 on June 11, 2015; Plaintiff 12 on December 6, 2016; Plaintiff 10, the deceased Nonparty 1’s child, took over the said lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5 through 7, 13 through 23 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), a significant fact in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiff et al. is the victims of the “comfort women” system that was operated in a systematic and planned way in the war of aggression. During the Second World War, Japan prepared and operated the “comfort women system” system for the performance of the war of aggression. At the time of the need for the “comfort women”, the Plaintiff et al., living in the Korean Peninsula, who was in the occupation of the Korean Peninsula, forced the Plaintiff et al. to move out of the Korean Peninsula and forced him/her to move out of the Korean Peninsula, and was exposed to ordinary violence, adviser, and sexual assault while being detained in the NIS. During that process, the Plaintiff et al. did not pay adequate wages or allowances to the Plaintiff et al. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant act”). This series of acts (hereinafter referred to as the “instant act”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff et al., having caused serious physical and mental pain to the Plaintiff et al., seeking compensation for a defendant, which is identical to the Defendant, as part of the consolation money.

3. Determination as to whether jurisdiction (whether national exemption is applied) exists

A. The flow of the theory of international law on state immunity

1) Traditional theory of international law on state immunity

The State immunity or sovereign exemption (hereinafter referred to as “State immunity”) is an international customary law that provides that a domestic court does not have jurisdiction over a lawsuit against a foreign country and that a foreign country does not enforce foreign jurisdiction over its activities and property. This is based on the principle, etc. that all countries having sovereignty are equal and independent, and have no control over any other equal person. (The concept of State immunity is the conclusion of the principle of equality of sovereignty, and that it is necessary for the state to continue to maintain a friendship by recognizing the authority of a foreign country from a reciprocal point of view, on the grounds that all countries having sovereignty have been widely supported by the end of the nineteenth century.

2) The rise of restrictive state immunity theory

As the concept of state immunity has been strictly limited from the end of the 19th century, many countries have prepared domestic laws or joined treaties to the effect that state immunity does not apply to judicial and commercial activities, etc.

B. Determination as to whether the instant act is a judicial act and has jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea court

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Supreme Court Decision

According to the customary international law, the State’s sovereign act is in principle exempted from the jurisdiction of another country. However, it cannot be said that it is today’s international law or international practice to exempt from the jurisdiction of another country even the judicial act of a country. Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as the fact that a foreign judicial act conducted within the territory of the Republic of Korea belongs to, or is closely related to, a sovereign act, and the exercise of jurisdiction over, a foreign country’s sovereign act is likely to unfairly interfere with, foreign sovereign activities, the pertinent foreign court may exercise jurisdiction against the pertinent foreign country as the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Da39216, Dec. 17, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da16766, Dec. 13, 2011).

B) Decision of the Constitutional Court

Judicial action that does not belong to the sovereign activities of the State under customary international law is not exempt from the jurisdiction of another State (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2016Hun-Ba388, May 25, 2017).

2) Determination

The plaintiffs seek compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiff, etc. due to the act of this case in Japan, and first, we examine whether the act of this case is a judicial act in which jurisdiction is not exempted.

Although private enterprisers participated in part of the act of this case claimed by the plaintiffs, it seems that part of the act of this case could have been returned to their commercial interests. However, even according to the plaintiffs' assertion, the act of this case has the following characteristics, so it is difficult to regard it as a judicial and commercial act, and it is reasonable to regard it as a sovereign act.

① The purpose of this case’s act was to achieve by Japan’s country’s physical and emotional stability, effective command and control of military units, etc., and the possession and direction of military units constitutes one of the most power acts of the State.

② In addition to the acts of this case claimed by the plaintiffs, many state agencies participated in the acts of this case. Such state agencies do not commit the acts of this case in an equal position with the other party for the purpose of achieving the interest as the private economic entity.

③ At the time, the background of the instant act was the amendment of statutes and budget allocation based on the policy decisions of the Japanese government.

C. Determination as to whether jurisdiction over sovereign acts exists

1) The premise of the discussion

Unless there is an international treaty that the Republic of Korea has ratified and ratified effectively with the Defendant or a treaty that has been concluded between the Republic of Korea and the Defendant, whether or not the courts of the Republic of Korea have jurisdiction over the sovereign acts of the Japanese country is bound to be determined by customary international law. Accordingly, the international trend of state immunity is first reviewed, and then the determination is made.

2) International conventions on State immunity and their respective legislative trends

A) International Convention on State Exemption

On May 16, 1972, countries of the European Community entered into the European Convention on State Exemption (hereinafter “EU”). Based on the result of the discussion of the UN International Law Committee, the UN Assembly adopted on December 2, 2004 the United Nations Convention on the State Exemption (hereinafter “the United Nations Convention”). The United Nations Convention on December 2, 2004 adopted the United Nations Convention on the United Nations Convention on the State Exemption (hereinafter “the United Nations Convention”) and the United Nations Convention on the 13th United States and State 14th United Nations Convention on the Grounds for the Denial of State Exemption in exceptional circumstances.

B) Legislative trends in each country

In 1976, the United States enacted the Foreign sovereignty Exemption Act (FSI) in 1976, which provides that the State immunity is not applicable in cases where monetary compensation is claimed against a foreign country for personal damage or death caused by commercial activities, lawsuits related to property acquired in violation of international law, lawsuits related to property in the United States, claims related to property in the United States or rights to property in the United States located in a foreign country or by illegal acts or omissions taken in the course of performing duties of an employee employed by a foreign country. In addition, the United Kingdom enacted the State Exemption Act in 1978 (State Imun Act) and Japan enacted the Civil Trial Rights Act in 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "State Exemption Act") in 197 (hereinafter referred to as "State Exemption Act"), and the State Exemption Act in 197 (hereinafter referred to as "State Exemption Act") in 197).

C) Judgment, etc. of the United Nations Court of Justice (hereinafter “ICJ”)

(1) On Aug. 4, 194, an Italian Ferini was arrested in the German Gun on arrest on Aug. 4, 194, and forced labor, but did not recognize the status of prisoners of war at the German Gun plant, and filed a lawsuit against Germany in 1998, and the above court rejected the lawsuit by recognizing the assertion of State immunity in Germany, and the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. However, on Mar. 11, 2004, the Italian Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below that the state exemption cannot be applied to the act of a country corresponding to an international crime violating the mandatory regulations, and that the lower court rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff.

(2) On December 23, 2008, after the judgment was concluded to the same effect in several cases filed against Germany in Italian even after the above Ferini ruling, Germany brought a lawsuit to the ICJ on the ground that “the German day was “violation of obligations under international law by the implementation of a judgment of Italian not respecting any State exemption under international law.” On February 3, 2012, the ICJ did not apply the Convention and the United Nations Convention between Germany and Italian, and on the premise that it should determine whether it has jurisdiction over It in accordance with the customary international law, on the premise that “State exemption was derived from the principle of sovereign equality of a State, one of the fundamental principles of international law order by declaring Article 2(1) of the UN Charter, and a deep-esteem in the current state practice was adopted as the general principles of customary international law. In other words, the ICJ determined that the denial of customary international law with respect to national immunity cannot be justified in the case of an individual’s life and health conflict in the civil procedure, and thus, the decision of an administrative authority concerned.”

In addition, the ICJ determined that the principle of state immunity could not be deprived of immunity due to a substantive argument that it is important to violate the international human rights law or the law of armed conflict as a procedural requirement, and that the right of a State to be exempted from a trial from other countries can not be determined depending on whether there is an alternative for securing compensation as a matter of whether the State is responsible for the international responsibility of the State, and whether the right to be exempted from a trial from other countries is separated.

(3) After the judgment of the ICJ, on October 22, 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court rendered a judgment to the effect that the customary international law of state immunity infringes on the fundamental value of the Italian constitutional order based on the dignity and value of human beings and the right to access to justice, and thus, cannot be admitted to domestic law order.

3) Determination

Even in cases where the customary international law of the State, which is a principle that the State's sovereign act is exempted from the jurisdiction of another State, is exempt from the jurisdiction of all acts of the State, so it cannot be deemed that it should be exempted from the exercise of jurisdiction of another State without exception if the said customary international law is a country with sovereignty, and in certain cases, such exception should be recognized. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account each of the evidence and the whole purport of arguments as seen earlier, the instant act violates the aforementioned basic facts and the anti-human criminal act committed in a planned and systematic and broad manner by the Japanese government at the time, as seen in paragraph 5 below. As such, the instant act was committed against the Plaintiff, etc. who is a national of the Republic of Korea within the Korean Peninsula, which was an illegal occupation by the Japanese government at that time, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the State exemption cannot be applied even if the instant act was a sovereign act of the State,

① Article 27(1) of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall have the right to a trial by law.” The right to a trial shall be guaranteed as the fundamental rights of citizens by stipulating that “All citizens shall have the right to a trial by law.” This right to a trial has the nature of a fundamental right to guarantee other fundamental rights (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2015Hun-Ba77, 2015Hun-Ma832, Dec. 27, 2018) in that it is the right to request remedy or prevention when fundamental rights are at risk of being infringed or infringed upon (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2015Hun-Ba77, 2015Hun-Ma832, Dec. 27, 2018). If the effectiveness of a right to a trial is not guaranteed, this right to a trial by the Constitution is a fundamental right which is sufficiently protected and guaranteed as well as other substantive fundamental rights. In addition, Article 8 of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" declared by the UN Assembly on December 10, 1948.

② State immunity is a theory applicable to the determination of whether jurisdiction exists prior to entering a substantive judgment and is related to procedural requirements. However, procedural law ought to be established and interpreted so that the rights and conditions under substantive law can be realized most effectively. This is because procedural law has meaning as a means of realizing the order of substantive law. There may be cases where the realization of rights under substantive law is restricted or where the order of substantive law is changed to some extent due to insufficient procedural law, but thereby, the rights and order under substantive law should not be either distord or distorted (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018).

③ The theory of state immunity is not a permanent and fixed value. It is also true in light of the fact that the European Convention, United Nations Convention, and other international agreements are continuously modified according to changes in international order, and it does not exempt a State from jurisdiction in certain cases beyond the absolute theory of state immunity. This is also in light of the United States’ domestic laws such as the Foreign sovereignty Exemption Act, the United Kingdom’s National Exemption Act, the Japanese Civil Trial Rights against Foreign States, the Singapore’s Act on the State Exemption, etc., and the Singapore’s Act on the State Exemption. Such changes reflect the implementation of the international legal system in the direction to protect an individual’s rights.

④ In the theory of State immunity, “in the course of the performance of an armed conflict” is anticipated to cause unexpected damages, and thus, jurisdiction shall be exempted with respect to acts committed at this time. However, the electric wires of the Pacific War were China, East Asia, Southyang-gun, etc., and at the same time the Korean Peninsula was not the place of war. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the act of deceiving, kidnapping, or abductioning the Plaintiff, etc. for the purpose of mobilization of the “comfort women” was caused during the course of the performance of a armed conflict.

⑤ Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties concluded in 1969 provides that “The absolute rules of general international law shall not be abandoned, and they shall be amended only by later rules of general international law having the same nature.” In light of the agreement of the international community as seen above, the rules accepted and accepted by the international community as a whole are distinguishable between the superior rules of international law and subordinate rules, and the subordinate rules of international law shall not deviate from the absolute rules of international law. As an example of absolute rules, the first draft of the Convention on the State Responsibility of International Illegal Acts (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”) of 2001 shall be excluded from the absolute rules of international law.

6) When interpreting and applying the Act, the result should be considered, and if the result of the interpretation is extremely unreasonable or unreasonable, a plan should be taken to exclude such interpretation. In ordinary, a variety of interpretation methods such as logical and systematic interpretation, historical interpretation, and teleological interpretation are mobilized for that purpose. Such interpretation methods are constitutional interpretation that conforms to the principles of the Constitution and the law and realizes it as much as possible. Even if the country that became the Defendant destroys the universal value of an international community and causes serious damage to the victims due to anti-human rights acts, the interpretation that the jurisdiction of a civil lawsuit selected as a final means is exempted as follows is unreasonable and unfair.

The term "common law" means that social norms created by repeated practices of the society have been approved and enforced as legal norms through the legal conviction and recognition of the society. Such customary law is effective as law unless it conflicts with the law and regulations, and in order to deem that certain social norms created by repeated practices of the society have reached the recognition as legal norms, it shall not be in violation of the overall legal order whose highest norm is the Constitution, and it shall be recognized that legitimacy and rationality are legitimate and reasonable, and even if such norms have been created through repeated practices of the society, it shall not be recognized as a common law (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da1178, Jul. 21, 2005, etc.). Even if state immunity is established as a practice, if it is an international customary law, and if the defendant commits serious illegal acts against India, it does not violate the law and order to exempt the victims from jurisdiction of the defendant, and thus, it shall not be recognized as a violation of the Constitution and order of the whole State, and thus, it shall not be recognized as a violation of human rights of another State.

(C) Even after the Pacific War, the victims of the “comfort women,” such as the Plaintiff, etc., were not revealed and were not subject to compensation or compensation between the two countries. In addition, in the 1990s, the victims of the “comfort women,” called the “comfort women,” called the “comfort women,” and was at issue in discussion since they demanded the Defendant’s death and compensation. The Defendant officially recognized the Japanese army’s operation of the “comfort women,” through the dialogue of the Minister of Security and Security, and had been subject to an apology at the government level. Nevertheless, the victims of the “comfort women,” was almost dismissed or dismissed even if they filed several civil lawsuits with the Defendant’s courts, and the outcome of the lawsuit filed with the courts of other countries, such as the United States, etc. In addition, the agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Defendant on Claim between the victims of the Japanese War and the agreement related to the sexual slavery victims of the Japanese colonial army in 2015, the Plaintiffs could not receive specific damages other than the instant litigation personnel.

7) The theory of State immunity is not intended to respect the sovereign state and have a meaning not to obey the jurisdiction of other states without permission. Since it is not formed in order to give an opportunity to avoid compensation and compensation by the State which has inflicted substantial damage on the individuals of other countries after the theory of State immunity, it is reasonable to permit exceptions to the interpretation of customary international law on State immunity in such cases.

4. Determination as to the existence of international jurisdiction

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 2(1) of the Private International Act provides, “Where a party to a lawsuit or a dispute is substantially related to the Republic of Korea, the court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall comply with reasonable principles consistent with the ideology of allocation of international jurisdiction in determining the existence or absence of substantial relation.” Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides, “The court shall judge the existence or absence of international jurisdiction, taking into account the provisions of domestic law, and shall fully consider the special nature of international jurisdiction in light of the purport of Paragraph (1).” Thus, the international jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring the appropriateness, speed and economy of the parties to the lawsuit as well as individual interests such as equity, convenience and predictability, and the appropriateness, speed and efficiency of the judgment, and effectiveness of the judgment. In addition, the issue of which interest among these diverse interests is to be protected shall be determined reasonably by taking into account the objective relationship between the suspension of laws in individual cases and the parties, as well as the substantive relationship between the case and the case in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19697, Jul. 25, 2019, etc.).

B. Determination

In light of the aforementioned circumstances and the overall purport of arguments, the following purport of the plaintiffs' claims are as follows: ① a Japanese country, which was under punishment for an invasion war between East Asia and Southyang-gun, forced the nationals of the Republic of Korea, who were illegally occupied at the time to satisfy the operational needs of the armed forces, to enter into tort and forced the life of "comfort women" by deceiving, inducing, inducing, or deceiving the nationals of the Republic of Korea to compensate for damages; ② a part of the above series of illegal acts is basically liable to the defendant based on the Civil Act of the Republic of Korea; ② a part of the above series of illegal acts is conducted within the Korean Peninsula, the territory of the Republic of Korea, and is currently residing in the Republic of Korea; ④ physical evidence of the plaintiffs et al., the victims of the above act was almost abandoned due to the passage of time and war; ④ The victims' personal evidence of the above bill operator or users of the Republic of Korea, and thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant's right to collect evidence of the Republic of Korea to the extent that it is difficult to view that it is necessary to present evidence.

5. Judgment on the merits

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) Determination of the governing law

The governing law that serves as the basis for determining whether a claim for damages is established based on a tort in this case shall be determined by the norm on the determination of governing law applicable to legal relations that contain foreign elements in the Republic of Korea, the suspension of law (hereinafter “low norm”). According to the above recognized facts, the legal relations of the defendant’s tort and the occurrence of damages therefrom, etc. were occurred before January 15, 1962, when the former Conflict of Laws (established by Act No. 996, Jan. 15, 1962; hereinafter the same shall apply) enforced. Since the conflict of laws of the Republic of Korea applicable to legal relations arising prior to the enactment of the former Conflict of Laws between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, from March 28, 1912 to the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 20 subparag. 21 of the Decree of the Republic of Korea, the determination of the governing law of the defendant’s tort by the law of the Republic of Korea (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da101061, Jun. 1, 198).

Furthermore, the law of the Republic of Korea applicable to determining whether a case occurred before January 1, 1960, which was enforced in the Civil Act, constitutes a tort is not a "former Civil Act" but a "former Civil Act" in accordance with the main sentence of Article 2 of the Addenda to the Civil Act.

2) Determination as to whether the instant act constitutes a tort

A) Comprehensively taking account of the facts and the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, Japan created a method of managing so-called “comfort women” in order to boost the morale of soldiers, reduce the occurrence of civil petitions, and seek efficient guidance to soldiers in the course of the performance of the war of aggression, such as the Japanese War and the Pacific War, and operated a “comfort women,” where the military and national agencies systematically prepared and secured human resources by institutionalizing such method, and where the military and national agencies could not find the same example in history.

The plaintiff et al., who is a minor or has become an adult majority because he was 20 years of age at the beginning of the 10th century, was mobilized as "comfort women" due to the deception of public officials in the private sector, such as "it is possible to punish money in the factory", or due to forced kidnapping or failing to understand the above system accurately, or the invitation of the neighbors. After being mobilized as "comfort women", the plaintiff et al. were forced to engage in sexual acts regardless of his will under the organized and direct and indirect control of the Japanese country, and the number of times passed several times per day. In order to engage in sexual acts with the plaintiff et al. of the young age, the plaintiff et al. started to reduce the number of soldiers accommodated in the room, and the time limit was limited. The plaintiff et al., et al. was forced not only to have sexual acts caused by it, but also to have been exposed to the minimum freedom of constant suppression of pregnancy and to have not been exposed to it.

B) According to Article 98(2) of the Defendant’s current Constitution (amended by Act No. 1946, Nov. 3, 1946), even before the enactment of the current Constitution, the above provision appears not to impose a new obligation but to declare a natural obligation as the State. Thus, Japan prior to the establishment of the current Constitution also has a duty to faithfully comply with treaties and international laws. However, the instant act was ratified by Japan’s country up to that time, in violation of Article 3 and Article 46 of the Hague Convention, “the obligation of the parties to the school to respect the honor and rights of families” to seriously infringe upon the right to sexual self-determination of women, thereby failing to comply with the obligation to respect their reputation and rights. ② The government, at the time of the enactment of the current Constitution, has actively violated the Defendant’s right to sexual traffic prohibited under “international treaties to restrain the sale of Madles,” and thus, has violated the State’s right to sexual traffic and sexual traffic prohibited under Article 16 of the former Labor Convention, and thus has violated the State or Japanese Labor Relations Convention.

C) In Article 5 (c) of the Charter of the Antarctic International Court (U.S. Charter of the ASEAN), published on January 19, 1946, the provisions of Article 5 (c) stipulate non-human acts, such as aging, as a crime against humanity, and provide for a crime against humanity, and punish war offenders who committed such act retroactively, and Article 6 (c) of the Berneenk International Military Court Charter, which began on November 1945, also has the same provisions in Section 18).

D) In full view of the international treaties at the time of the instant act, the general international customary law, the domestic law of Japan, and the overall purport of the charter and arguments of the International Criminal Court concerning the war crime before and after the instant act, it is reasonable to deem that the instant act, which was recognized earlier, constitutes a direct anti-human act connected to the implementation of the illegal colonial control and war against the Korean Peninsula and the Korean people at the time of the instant act, constitutes an illegal

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, which is recognized as identical to the Plaintiff, etc., is liable to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff, etc. due to the tort committed in Japan, based on money, barring any special circumstance.

B. Scope of liability for damages

In order to actively promote policies on the mobilization of forced human resources to carry out an illegal colonial rule and a war of aggression against the Korean Peninsula, Japan's country in the past forced the Plaintiff, etc. to lead a life as "comfort women" by deceiving or forcing the Plaintiff, etc., and in particular, the Plaintiff, etc. was forced to engage in sexual intercourse in a dangerous and cruel environment while deprived of the freedom of residence by hedging with his family even though they were under age, and forced the Plaintiff, etc. to engage in sexual intercourse. During that process, the Plaintiff, etc. was assaulted without any number, and the Plaintiff, etc. was forced to engage in sexual intercourse from time to time in addition to her child, injury, and disease. The past history that the “comfort women” was “comfort women” remains a very mental state where the damaged party remains in an unffortable memory memory, and thus, the Plaintiff, etc. was unable to lead a normal life after that time. Moreover, it is clear that not only the victim himself but also his family members were unable to live in a cleaning.

In full view of the degree of illegality of such harmful act, the period of suffering from the plaintiff et al.'s age and "comfort women", the degree of damage suffered by the plaintiff et al., such as the current environment and the degree of suppression of liberty, social and economic difficulties suffered after returning to Korea, considerable period of damage recovery after the tort, and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, it is reasonable to view that consolation money to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff et al. is at least 100,000 won, respectively.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 100,000,000 won to each of the plaintiffs (However, since the plaintiffs did not seek damages for delay when the claim of this case is filed, it shall not be judged separately).

D. Bodlon - Judgment as to the extinguishment of claim

1) Whether a claim under the Agreement on Claims has expired

A) We examine whether the compensation and other claims of Korean people mobilized as "comfort women" are included in the subject of the Agreement on Claims, and thus the conclusion of the Agreement on Claims has ceased to exist.

B) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the right to claim damages against the Defendant alleged by the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be subject to the agreement on the right to claim damages (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da61381, Oct. 30, 2018, etc.). Therefore, the right to claim damages against the Defendant cannot be deemed to have expired under the agreement on the right to claim damages.

① The Plaintiffs are not claiming against the Defendant for unpaid wages or compensations, and the Plaintiffs are claiming consolation money on the premise of an unlawful colonial rule against the Korean Peninsula in Japan and a aggressive act directly connected to the implementation of the war against aggressions.

② According to the progress of the agreement on claims and the situation before and after the conclusion, it is judged that the agreement on claims was aimed at resolving the financial and private claims between the two countries based on Article 4 of the Convention on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on

(3) It is not clear whether the funds for economic cooperation paid by the defendant to the Government of the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 1 of the Agreement on Claims may be deemed as having legal relation with the resolution of issues of rights under Article 2.

④ In the course of negotiations under the Agreement on Claims, the Defendant did not recognize the illegality of Japanese colonial rule, and instead denied the legal compensation for the victims of the “comfort women,” and accordingly, the two governments of the two countries did not reach an agreement on the nature of the rule of the Korean Peninsula in the Japanese country. In such a situation, it is difficult to deem that the victims of the “comfort women” were included in the subject of the Agreement on Claims.

⑤ The opinion of the President or the relevant administrative department cannot be bound by the judicial decision of the judiciary, and deeming that the State can directly extinguish the citizen’s right to claim without the consent of the citizen having separate legal personality from the State without the waiver of the diplomatic protection right by concluding a treaty is inconsistent with the principle of modern law. Even if the State’s extinguishment of the citizen’s right to claim through a treaty can be permitted under international law, considering that the State and the individual are separate legal entities, the conclusion of a treaty cannot be deemed to have extinguished of the citizen’s right to claim the citizen’s right to claim in addition to the diplomatic protection right of the State. However, it is difficult to find sufficient grounds to deem that there was the agreement between the two countries on the extinguishment of the individual’s right to claim.

(6) On August 26, 2005, the public-private joint committee revealed the view that the claim for damages due to the anti-human misconduct in which Japan's state power was involved or the illegal act directly connected to the colonial rule cannot be deemed to have been resolved by the agreement on the claim.

2) Determination as to whether a claim under the “agreement related to sexual slavery victims drafted for the Japanese Army in 2015” has expired

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the right to claim damages against the defendant alleged by the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as being subject to the above agreement, and thus, the right to claim damages against the defendant cannot be deemed as extinguished by the above agreement.

① On July 31, 2017, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the direct control of the Minister, set up a “Schnas” (one chairperson, two vice-chairpersons, three civilian members, and three members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to examine the agreement on sexual slavery victims drafted in the Japanese War, and conducted an evaluation of the said agreement. On December 27, 2017, the report announced by the said Sknas, deemed that the said agreement was an official agreement with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and with ratification of the circumstances, and its character was not a treaty, but a political agreement.

② Although the agreement was an official promise to be jointly announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and ratified under the normal conditions, the agreement did not have been made in writing, and did not ordinarily use the name or the form of an article that is commonly used to be granted to the agreement, and does not include not indicate both parties’ intent on the validity of the agreement, nor does it include the creation of specific legal rights and obligations.

③ Article 60(1) of the Constitution provides, “The National Assembly has the right to consent to the conclusion and ratification of a treaty on mutual assistance or mutual security, treaties on important international organizations, treaties on friendship and trade, treaties on restrictions on sovereignty, treaties on strengthening treaties, treaties on treaties or legislative matters that would impose serious financial burden on the State or citizens,” and Article 73 of the Constitution provides that the President shall have the right to conclude a treaty, and Article 89 Subparag. 3 of the Constitution provides that the State Council shall deliberate on the draft of a treaty. The above agreement is an urgent conflict between one and the two countries, and the victims of the Japanese military “comfort women” related to the basic rights of the people, but did not undergo the procedures for concluding a treaty, such as deliberation by the State Council or the National Assembly, and did not grant or publicly notify a treaty number, such as a publicly notified treaty dealt with as a simple treaty practice. This also applies to the Defendant.

④ The above agreement was reached without entrusting the Government of the Republic of Korea to the Government as to whether the victims have exercised their civil rights. As such, the State cannot dispose of individual rights without any separate delegation or statutory provision, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages was made final and conclusive resolution.

⑤ It seems that the above agreement is likely to lead to a declaration that there was a political agreement as a country with a large country on the issue of “comfort women” between the two countries.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are with merit, and they are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Justice)

(1) On October 30, 2020, the representative of the Plaintiffs stated the modified purport of the claim as stated above, among the written application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of October 28, 2020, at the fourth date of pleading on October 30, 2020.

Note 2) The Defendant’s telegraph is a nation that existed in Japan until the current Japanese Constitution was adopted in 1947, which was established as a domain of the year 1868.

3) The Decree on National Labor Relations Assistance was amended on December 12, 1943, and the mobilization period for unmarried women aged between 14 and under 25 was extended from 30 days to 50 days, and the object was expanded from 14 years to 40 years of age.

주4) 태평양전쟁 무렵 일본군의 성적 욕구 등의 해소방안으로 동원된 여성들의 명칭은 ‘정신대(정신대, 근로정신대와 구별된다)’, ‘처녀공출’, ‘보국대’, ‘근로대’, ‘종군위안부(종군위안부)’ 등의 명칭으로 불리다가, 1990년경 한국정신대연구회와 한국정신대문제대책협의회는 “일본군 ‘위안부’”라는 명칭을 사용하기로 하였다. 위 명칭 또한 남성으로부터 당한 명백한 성적 피해를 남성에 대한 ‘위안행위’라고 개념 짓는 것으로 보아 “성노예”, “전쟁노예”, “군대성노예”, “일본군 ‘위안부’ 피해자”라는 명칭으로 변경해야 한다는 주장도 있다.「일제하 일본군위안부 피해자에 대한 보호ㆍ지원 및 기념사업 등에 관한 법률」에서는 ‘일본군위안부 피해자’라고 칭한다. UN 인권소위원회의 맥두걸(Gay McDougall) 보고관은 1998년 ‘Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-like Practices during Armed Conflict’라는 제목의 보고서에서, 군 위안소를 ‘강간 센터(Rape Center)’ 또는 ‘강간 캠프(Rape Camp)’로, 위 여성들을 ‘성노예(Sexual Slavery)’로 지칭하였다. 위와 같이 여러 명칭이 혼재되어 있기는 하나, 이 판결에서는 원고들이 칭하는 대로 위 여성들의 명칭을 ‘위안부’로, 그들이 거주하던 군대 영내 또는 영외 수용시설을 ‘위안소’로 통칭하기로 한다.

Note 5) As expressed by the Plaintiff, etc., the same shall apply in paragraph 3.

Note 6) They were injections mainly used for the treatment of sexual illness, such as dynasium, as “suic acid.”

7) In the case of Plaintiff 9, the birth year and the victim’s testimony interview data (No. 23-1) on the resident registration does not coincide with the birth year and there are a lot of differences. However, in the case of Plaintiff 9, there are many cases where Plaintiff 9 was born prior to the enforcement of the Resident Registration Act in the time of birth, and documents to prove the birth was born during the Japanese colonial period and the Korean War, etc., and where Plaintiff 9 was born around that time, there were many cases where Plaintiff 9 was registered as residents differently from the actual birth period. Thus, the birth year is written according to Plaintiff 9’s

8) In Japan, the term “international treaties on the Prohibition of Women's Trade for the purpose of the pursuit of business.”

주9) 현행 일본 형법 제226조에서도 “소재国외に이송する목적で、인を략취し、우は유괴した자は、이년이상の유기징역に処する.”(국외로 이송할 목적으로 사람을 약취 또는 유괴한 자는 2년 이상의 유기징역에 처한다)라고 규정하고 있다.

10) After that, the name was changed to the Act on the Protection, Support and Memorial Services, etc. of sexual slavery Victims drafted for the Japanese Army under the Japanese colonial Rule; hereinafter referred to as the “comfort Victims Act”).

Note 11) In a case where a party died, but the litigation procedure has not been interrupted due to the attorney’s death (Article 238 and Article 233(1) of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 238 and Article 233(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), in principle, the issue of taking over the lawsuit does not occur, and the attorney is to perform the lawsuit for all of the successors, and even if the judgment is made in the name of the deceased, the judgment becomes effective against all the successors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da54

12) On the grounds that, even in the judgment of the District Court of Washington D.C. (Hwang Galle Jo v. Japan, 172 F. 2d 52 (D. D.C. 2001), the Court determined that, “In accordance with the prior plan planned, ordered, established, and controlled for the benefit of one and other persons,” “one military personnel and other persons,” and that, in the case of asserting that, even if the Defendant asserted that the Japanese military forces paid the money in return for sexual acts, the nature of the act cannot be deemed as commercial acts, even if the Defendant’s act was not commercial acts, and that, as a result, the Defendant’s military force mobilized the Defendant’s sovereign power, the act is called “an act of self-confising the Republic of Korea”.

13) On the grounds of denying the exemption under the European Convention, the European Convention lists the following: ① a lawsuit on a contract with a law-suspensioning country to fulfill its obligations; ② a lawsuit on an employment contract with a labor supplied in the law-suspensioning country; ③ a lawsuit participating in an organization of companies, etc. based on the law-suspensioning country; ④ a lawsuit on trade in the law-suspensioning country; ⑤ a lawsuit on intangible property rights protected in the law-suspensioning country; ⑤ a lawsuit on a tort committed in the law-suspension country; and 7 a lawsuit on the validity of arbitration with a law-suspension country as the place of arbitration

주14) 유엔협약에서 면제를 부인하는 사유로 ① 상업적 거래, ② 고용계약, ③ 사망, 신체침해 및 재산상 침해(제12조, 원문은 다음과 같다. Unless otherwise agreed between the States concerned, a State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another State which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to pecuniary compensation for death or injury to the person, or damage to or loss of tangible property, caused by an act or omission which is alleged to be attributable to the State, if the act or omission occurred in whole or in part in the territory of that other State and if the author of the act or omission was present in that territory at the time of the act or omission: 관계국들 간에 별도의 합의가 없는 한 국가는 타국의 권한 있는 법정에서 자국에 귀속되는 것으로 주장되는 작위 또는 부작위로 인한 사망 기타 인적 피해 또는 유형의 재산상의 피해에 대한 금전적 배상에 관한 소송에 있어서 관할권 면제를 원용할 수 없다. 단, 이는 그 작위 또는 부작위가 전체적으로 또는 부분적으로 그 타국의 영토상에서 발생하였으며 그 작위 또는 부작위의 주체가 그 작위 또는 부작위의 발생 당시에 그 영토상에 있는 경우에 한한다), ④ 재산의 소유ㆍ점유 및 사용, ⑤ 지식 및 산업재산권, ⑥ 기업 또는 기타 단체에의 참여, ⑦ 국가에 의해 소유 또는 운영되는 선박, ⑧ 중재합의의 효과 등을 열거하여 정하였다.

주15) 이 부분의 원문은 다음과 같다. “Chapter 97. - Jurisdictional immunities of foreign states §1605(a)(5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above, in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious acts or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment; except this paragraph shall not apply to - (A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or - (B) any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit or interference with contract right.”

주16) 원문은 다음과 같다. “Article 1 The Parties to the present Convention agree to punish any person who, to gratify the passions of another: (1) Procures, entices or leads away, for purposes of prostitution, another person, even with the consent of that person; (2) Exploits the prostitution of another person, even with the consent of that person.”[이 협약의 당사국은 다른 사람의 욕정을 만족시키기 위하여 다음과 같은 행위를 하는 자를 처벌하는 데 동의한다. (1) 비록 동의를 받는다고 하더라도 성매매를 목적으로 사람들 조달, 유인 또는 인도하는 행위, (2) 동의를 받는다고 하더라도 그 성매매를 착취하는 행위]

주17) 원문은 다음과 같다. “Article 5 (c) Crimes against Humanity: Namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or prosecutions on political or racial grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such plan.”

주18) 원문은 다음과 같다. “Article 6 The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.”

19) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff et al. were the 10th to 20 years of age at the time, and that the Plaintiff et al. were aware of the fact that the Plaintiff et al. were were the 10th to 20 years of age, and that it was supported by the Japanese government’s possession of the 10th to 20 years of age, the amount of consolation money does not vary regardless of whether the Plaintiff et al. were mobilized formally and by a strong method without being mobilized, and that the amount of consolation money is not determined separately as to the amount of consolation money so long as the Plaintiff et al. filed a claim within

20) The plaintiffs asserted that the claims of the plaintiffs, etc. shall not be extinguished, notwithstanding the "Agreement on Claim" and "Agreement on the Issues Relating to the sexual slavery Victims for the Japanese Army in 2015". Thus, the defendant, even without a direct dispute over this case, shall be examined as supplementaryly as to the above assertion.