hankyoreh

Chief Justice Kim Myeong-soo full bench of the Supreme Court prepare to announce their ruling on reparations to the victims of forced labor by Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Co. on Oct. 30. (Kim Myoung-jin

“In conclusion, it is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that the compensation rights sought by the plaintiffs in this case should properly be seen as not included as subject to the terms of the Korea-Japan Claims Settlement, and that the conclusion of the original court following the remand acknowledging the plaintiffs’ claim is appropriate. The order and appeal are both hereby dismissed.”

It took less than ten minutes to conclude a lawsuit asking that damages be paid to people conscripted into labor during Japan’s colonial occupation of Korea in a legal battle that dragged on for 13 years and eight months, or as long as 18 years in some accounts.

On Oct. 30, the full bench of the Supreme Court (under Chief Justice Kim Myeong-soo) made its ruling in the retrial of a lawsuit in which former labor conscripts Yeo Un-taek, Shin Cheon-su, Lee Chun-shik and Kim Gyu-su requested damages from Japanese company Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Co. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Seoul High Court, which ruled that Yeo and the other plaintiffs should each be paid 100 million won (US$87,800) in damages.

The court’s rationale was that victims of forced labor, a crime against humanity committed during Japan’s colonial rule of Korea, retain their individual rights to claim damages and compensation, despite the basic treaty that South Korea and Japan signed in 1965 to settle outstanding claims between the two countries.

The July 2013 decision of the 19th civil division of the Seoul High Court (under Hon. Yun Seong-geun) that the full bench of the Supreme Court repeatedly said was valid was fully in line with the May 2012 ruling by the first panel of the Supreme Court (under Justice Kim Neung-hwan) that sided with the plaintiffs. In effect, it took a full six years and five months for the Supreme Court to confirm a ruling it had already made. Even just considering the time that has passed since the Japanese company rejected the Seoul High Court’s ruling and made another appeal, this took five years and three months.

During the intervening time, the people who filed the lawsuit have passed away, one after another. Of the original plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit in Feb. 2005, only Lee Chun-sik, 94, attended the hearing in his wheelchair. Yeo Un-taek, Shin Cheon-su and Kim Gyu-su were represented in the Supreme Court by their funeral portraits. Of the three, Kim died this past June, just four months ago. If a lawsuit about the same issues that was filed against Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in May 2000 is included, Lee is the only one of the nine plaintiffs, all victims of forced labor, who is still alive today.

“I feel sad and anxious to be here alone at the trial today. It’s heartbreaking, and I want to cry. I wish they were here, too,” Lee said, before breaking off, unable to continue. This ruling came too late to alleviate the bitterness that had built up over 75 years for the disdain and the hellish working conditions that Lee and the rest suffered between 1941 and 1943 at the factory of Japan Iron and Steel Co., the forerunner of Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Co. For the elderly victims of forced labor, delayed justice is no justice at all.

The trial was not merely delayed – it was backed by a deal. Multiple documents have turned up in an investigation by the prosecutors that the National Court Administration and Park Geun-hye’s Blue House had discussed the options of delaying the damages lawsuit filed by the former conscript laborers or overturning the Supreme Court’s decision.

This was when the Blue House was under the control of former president Park Geun-hye, who prioritized South Korea-Japan relations, and when the Supreme Court was led by former chief justice Yang Seung-tae, who was lobbying for a new court of appeals. The reason the Supreme Court finally referred the case to the court’s full bench in July and rushed to reach a decision was apparently because of concerns that the allegations of wheeling and dealing in the courthouse might foment distrust of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court’s decision opens the door for the victims of forced mobilization and labor and their surviving family members to file for damages against Japanese companies guilty of war crimes. But it will not be easy for them to actually receive compensation. Since Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Co. and other Japanese companies have few assets inside South Korea, the usual ways of forcing a company to pay damages, such as placing a lien on property, are unlikely to be effective. There has been strong pushback from the Japanese government, press and affected companies, who are talking about filing a suit at the International Court of Justice. This is also likely to cause considerable damage to South Korea and Japan’s diplomatic relations.

In regard to the chief contention in the case – namely, whether South Korea and Japan’s 1965 agreement to settle all claims had caused the victims of compulsory mobilization to lose their right to claim damages and compensation – the full bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the victims’ individual rights to make claims remained intact, with seven justices in support and six dissenting. Even among the six judges in the minority, four issued a separate dissenting opinion in which they agreed with the majority that victims can exercise their right to claim damages and compensation.

“The right of the victims of compulsory mobilization to claim damages and compensation is predicated on the crimes against humanity committed by Japanese companies that were directly linked to [Japan’s] wars of aggression and illegal colonial rule over the Korean Peninsula, and as such it does not fall under the agreement that settled claims [between the two countries],” the full bench of the court said in its majority opinion.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the individual right to make claims based on crimes against humanity has not expired is important, since it will likely be used by other victims of crimes against humanity, including not only those who were forced to mobilize but also Korean victims of the atomic attacks on Japan and the former comfort women.

In regard to the other points of controversy, the full bench of the court largely accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2012 without disagreement. “We cannot accept the validity of the Japanese judiciary’s final ruling against Yeo and the other plaintiffs, which is in violation of Korea’s positive customs as well as its social order,” the court concluded. The Supreme Court also repeated its earlier conclusion that victims could file for damages and compensation because today’s Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Co. can be traced back to Japan Iron and Steel Co.

“Until the lawsuit was filed in Feb. 2005, there were obstacles in South Korea that prevented the victims from objectively exercising their rights vis-à-vis Japanese companies. The Japanese company’s argument that the statute of limitations for making claims has expired represents an unacceptable misuse of rights,” the Supreme Court also ruled.

By Yeo Hyeon-ho, senior staff writer, and Kim Min-kyoung, staff reporter

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