(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.10.7. 선고 2015구합193 판결

The defendant shall pay 5.6 million won to the plaintiff for consolation money (compensation) from the year 2008 to the year 2014, and shall pay 8.8 million won per annum until the time of survival.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 1945, the Plaintiff was drafted under the Japanese colonial rule, and served in the Army Training Center at the time of the Si, and on September 2, 1945, and on July 10, 2007, the Plaintiff was decided as a victim of forced mobilization under the Japanese colonial rule pursuant to Article 17 of the Special Act on the Inspection of the Truth of Forced Mobilization under the Japanese colonial rule (Act No. 10143, Mar. 22, 2010).

B. On June 22, 1965, the Defendant entered into an agreement between Japan and Japan on the resolution of problems concerning property and claims and on economic cooperation (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement on Korea-Japan Claim”). The agreement includes the content that Japan would make a loan of US$ 200 million to the Defendant for 10 years (hereinafter referred to as “economic cooperation fund”).

C. After entering into the Korea-Pacific War, the Defendant established the Act on Support for Victims, etc. of Compulsory Mobilization before and after the former Pacific War (amended on March 22, 2010; hereinafter “the Act on Support for the Military Mobilization”) and the Act on the Investigation of Force Mobilization, and accordingly, paid consolation money to those who were determined as victims of forced mobilization of forced mobilization in Korea during the Japanese occupation period and their bereaved family members.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Upon the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Agreement, the claims held by the victims of domestic compulsory mobilization like the Plaintiff were extinguished, and the Defendant did not compensate the victims of domestic compulsory mobilization even though they were paid compensation for the victims of domestic compulsory mobilization in lieu of Japan in accordance with the Korea-Japan Agreement, so the Defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff, the victims of domestic compulsory mobilization, in accordance with the Korea-Japan Agreement.

If the Defendant did not include the compensation for the victims of domestic compulsory mobilization in the amount that he received from Japan pursuant to the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the compensation, who is the victims of domestic compulsory mobilization, due to the stroke diplomatic diplomacy where the Defendant abandons his duties and did not claim compensation for the victims of domestic compulsory mobilization in Japan.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination on this safety defense

In order to receive consolation money, the Defendant filed a claim for payment pursuant to the Pacific War Support Act or the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the dismissal decision if such claim is dismissed, and cannot immediately seek consolation money against the Defendant without filing an application for payment of consolation money. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. Thus, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

However, the principal cause of the Plaintiff is not to seek a payment of consolation money under the Pacific War Support Act or the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, but to seek a payment of consolation money directly against the Defendant under the Korea-Japan Agreement as a party litigation under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act. The existence of the Defendant’s duty to pay consolation money is determined within the main issue as to the propriety of the claim. Thus, the Defendant’s principal defense

5. Judgment on the merits

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of evidence No. 6 and the purport of the entire arguments and facts in this court, namely, the free portion of the Economic Cooperation Fund that the Defendant received from Japan after the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Agreement is carried out to Japan at the time of Japanese occupation as well as the corresponding part of the individual claims, and the various items, such as the current amount of money, claims, etc. for the Republic of Korea's large amount of money, claims, etc., the total amount of the above Economic Cooperation Fund is not determined first and then it cannot be determined separately for each item. In order to determine the individual claims of the Republic of Korea, it is necessary to establish facts, guidelines and procedures, and thus, it seems substantially difficult to determine such a certain amount of money under the Agreement between the State and the Republic of Korea based on the agreement on distribution of claims between the State and the public-private partnership, and thus, it is difficult to determine a certain amount of money under the agreement between the State and the public-private partnership.

In addition, Article 1 of the Korea-Japan Agreement does not seem to have a legal relationship with the resolution of the problem of rights under Article 2 and the legal consideration for the economic cooperation funds paid by the Japanese government to the Japanese government under Article 2, and the Japanese government in the course of negotiations regarding the Agreement on Claims, without recognizing the illegality of colonial rule, denied the legal compensation for forced mobilization damage as a source of source without recognizing the illegality of colonial rule. Accordingly, the two countries did not reach an agreement on the nature of rule-making. In this situation, in light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the claims for damages due to anti-human misconduct in which the state power of Japan was involved or illegal acts directly connected with colonial rule was included in the subject of the Agreement on Claims, the claims for damages against Japanese nationals of the Republic of Korea were not extinguished due to the Korea-Japan Agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da68620, May 24, 2012).

Therefore, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages against Japan was terminated due to the conclusion of the agreement on the right to claim damages or the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received compensation from Japan on behalf of the Plaintiff, the economic cooperation fund that the Defendant received from Japan belongs to the Defendant once, and the Plaintiff cannot seek compensation for domestic compulsory mobilization against the Defendant based on the agreement on the right to claim damages between the Defendant and Japan without any specific legal basis on the premise that the specific part of the economic cooperation fund naturally belongs to himself/herself. In addition, the Plaintiff still has the right to claim damages against Japan, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was unable to receive compensation for compulsory mobilization due to the Plaintiff’s neglecting his/her duties during the process of concluding the agreement on the right to claim damages against Japan. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be said to have the obligation to pay

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.