hankyoreh

Former comfort woman Lee Yong-su (far left) speaks during a press conference at the headquarters of MINBYUN – Lawyers for a Democratic Society in Seoul in November 2019. (Baek So-ah, staff photographer)

Two Japanese attorneys have submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of a damage lawsuit filed in a South Korean court against the Japanese government by South Korean “comfort women,” sex slaves under the Japanese imperial army. The Japanese attorneys said that lawsuits in South Korea represent the last chance the former comfort women have for gaining compensation from Japan. These attorneys offered a direct rebuttal to the Japanese government, which has called for the lawsuit to be overturned on the grounds that South Korean courts don’t have jurisdiction to try cases filed against another country.

Seita Yamamoto and Yetsuro Totsuka, who are both members of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, recently submitted their brief to Hon. Yu Seok-dong, presiding judge in the 15th Civil Division at the Seoul Central District Court, who is currently hearing a lawsuit filed against the Japanese government by former comfort women including Kil Won-ok and by bereaved family members. In the brief, which the Hankyoreh was given on Apr. 22, the attorneys emphasize that South Korean court rulings offer the victims a “last resort” to hold Japan legally responsible, since the Japanese courts and government have blocked all avenues for them to do so through the Japanese judicial system.

The Japanese government doesn’t recognize lawsuits filed against it in South Korea under the principle of sovereign immunity, which states that a country can’t be forced to take legal responsibility by the judgment of another country’s court. While the lawsuit was originally filed in December 2016, the Japanese government has refused to allow legal documents to be served, holding up the case for nearly three years. The only position expressed by Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is that the lawsuit ought to be thrown out according to the principle of sovereign immunity.

After South Korea’s National Court Administration recognized that notice had been serviced publicly, the trial finally began in November, with the court asking the former comfort women to prepare an argument against the principle of sovereign immunity. The amicus curiae brief submitted by the Japanese attorneys answers the court’s request for a rebuttal to the Japanese government’s claims.

In their brief, Yamamoto and Totsuka point out that the Japanese government, in addition to denying that the South Korean courts have jurisdiction over the trial, has also made a coordinated attempt to avoid responsibility in postwar damage lawsuits filed in its domestic courts. According to Totsuka, there was considerable overlap in the rationale provided by Japan’s Supreme Court for ruling against the plaintiffs in two separate cases in 2007, one filed by Chinese comfort women and the other filed by Chinese who had done forced labor for Nishimatsu Construction Company.

“Twelve out of sixteen lines in the Chinese comfort women ruling are identical to lines found in the Nishimatsu ruling. That shows that the plans of the Supreme Court are being decided by someone else and that the court is only handling the paperwork,” Totsuka asserted.

In these trials, the court found that the damages claimed by the war victims had all been settled within the framework of the Treaty of San Francisco between Japan and the Allied Powers and that individual victims were unable to exercise the right to make such claims through the courts. Since then, those rulings have become established as legal precedent that victims have no way to receive compensation and have been used as grounds for ruling against the victims in all related lawsuits.

“The Supreme Court has reached these rulings with the intention of not allowing any more postwar damage lawsuits to go forward,” Yamamoto concluded. The attorney also quoted “Courts Without Hope,” the memoir by Hiroshi Segi, a former investigator for Japan’s Supreme Court: “The judges working on postwar damage lawsuits filed by Chinese victims in the Tokyo District Court met together secretly and discussed how to approach the trials on the assumption that they’d ultimately be dismissed.”

“If the South Korean comfort women file the same lawsuits in Japan, they’ll certainly lose. Under Japan’s current judicial procedures, lawsuits by foreign victims of the war or colonization cannot gain any traction. Victims have effectively been stripped of their right to a trial, which is a factor that ought to be considered by the South Korean court as it decides whether to grant Japan’s argument about sovereign immunity,” Yamamoto went on to say.

“What the victims have been actively seeking through this lawsuit is not just financial compensation, but Japan’s recognition and apology. The reason we’re filing this lawsuit is to force the Japanese government to adopt a [forward-looking] attitude,” explained Lee Sang-hui, an attorney who has been representing the victims since 2016.

If the South Korean court doesn’t accept the Japanese government’s argument about sovereign immunity and holds Japan responsible for compensating the victims, the former comfort women would gain the power to dispose of Japanese assets in South Korea. The arguments over sovereign immunity are scheduled to take place in a hearing on May 20. After that, witnesses will be questioned and victims will testify, with the verdict likely to be returned in September or October.

In a related story, the first hearing in a separate damages lawsuit filed against Japan by former comfort women including Lee Ok-seon and surviving family members will be held on Apr. 24.

By Jang Ye-ji, staff reporter

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