hankyoreh

Im Jae-seong, attorney with Haemaru Law Firm, who helped forced labor victims get a Supreme Court ruling that demanded compensation from Japanese companies in October 2018. (Kang Jae-hoon, staff photographer)

Im Jae-seong, an attorney with Haemaru Law Firm who played a leading role in an October 2018 Supreme Court decision concerning the compensation of forced labor survivors, spoke as though he had a lot weighing on his mind. Nearly two years after that decision, he explained, the situation is now one where “it would be effectively impossible for the South Korean and Japanese governments to come up with ‘diplomatic compromise’ that would be acceptable to the plaintiffs.”

“Our only choice now is to try to speed up the liquidation process for the seized [Japanese company] assets as much as possible,” he concluded.

Hankyoreh (Hani): There’s been talk about it being possible to liquidate the South Korean assets of the Japanese companies [subject to the Supreme Court decision] after Aug. 4.

Im Jae-seong (Im): To liquidate them, you need a court ruling to issue a confiscation order and disposal order. On June 3, it was determined that the confiscation ruling had been served by publication. That service by publication takes effect as of Aug. 4. There’s also a remaining appraisal process for the value of shares from PNR (a joint venture established by POSCO and Nippon Steel in 2008), which were among the assets subject to confiscation. We have no way of knowing whether the liquidation will be able to happen immediately after Aug. 4.

Hani: The plaintiffs and legal team must have made a lot of efforts since the Supreme Court ruling.

Im: In January, the South Korean litigation representatives, support groups, and Japanese attorneys issued a statement in Seoul and Tokyo proposing the creation of a discussion body to examine plans for resolving the entire forced labor mobilization issue. There was a positive response from the South Korean government, which said it “lauded” the effort, but the Japanese government did not respond at all.

Hani: What was your position on the “Moon Hae-sang [former National Assembly speaker] proposal,” which Japan seemed to show an interest in?

Im: The key thing about that law was that it would extinguish the victims’ litigation rights in terms of domestic law. Nowhere in the bill was there any guarantee that the accused companies would participate in the foundation [Memory, Reconciliation, and Future Foundation] that would be created under the law. It also didn’t guarantee that the accused companies would acknowledge the truth [of the plaintiffs’ victimization by forced labor] or express their opinion [of dismay and apology] to the plaintiffs. It was a “2+2” plan that would create a foundation with donations from South Korea and Japanese companies and members of the public to give to the victims, and the whole point of the idea was to prevent compulsory execution [liquidation]. Apart from the whole question of the justification behind those aims, there needed to be communication with the victims, who had gotten a ruling [in their favor] and were proceeding with the execution.

Hani: What is the situation with the plaintiffs now?

Im: Lee Chun-sik [aged 96] received a Supreme Court ruling in his favor 13 years after he first filed suit in South Korean courts. Nearly two years have passed since then. He’s having difficulty understanding why it’s taking so long to enforce the decision. [Stock disposal procedures are typically completed in three months, or up to six months when the defendant is overseas.] With the two governments having problems reaching an agreement, he thought that the victims might try having direct discussions with the accused companies, but although he’s attempted several times to hear a response through Kim and Chang -- the law firm representing Nippon Steel -- there hasn’t been any answer.

When the ruling first came out, some of the support groups and legal representatives were of the opinion that we should wait to see how the two sides’ diplomatic discussions went. At this point, however, there aren’t any visible prospects for reaching a deal through diplomatic discussions. From the standpoint of the [victims’] representatives, all we can do is ensure that the execution procedures go ahead quickly in accordance with the South Korean court’s decision.

By Gil Yun-hyung, staff writer

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]