Second Lawsuit by Comfort Women Victims Against Japan 'Dismissed'... Court Recognizes State Immunity

On the 21st, at the Seoul Seocho District Central District Court, after the verdict was delivered in the second damages claim lawsuit filed by former Japanese military comfort women against the Japanese government in a domestic court, Grandmother Lee Yong-soo closed her eyes while expressing her stance on the ruling. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] Our courts have ruled that the Japanese government cannot be held liable for compensation to the surviving victims of the Japanese military sexual slavery. This decision contrasts with the ruling made by another court in January that recognized compensation liability.

The Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 15 (Presiding Judge Min Seongcheol) dismissed on the morning of the 21st the damages claim lawsuit filed by 20 victims and bereaved families, including the late grandmothers Kwak Ye-nam and Kim Bok-dong, against the Japanese government. Dismissal is a decision made when a lawsuit or claim is deemed improper or does not meet the requirements. Previously, the same court’s Civil Division 34 (then Presiding Judge Kim Jeong-gon) ruled in favor of 12 other victims, including the late grandmother Bae Chun-hee, in a similar lawsuit against the Japanese government. However, since each trial is independently judged, different conclusions were reached.

The key issue in the lawsuit was "sovereign immunity." Sovereign immunity is the principle that one state is exempt from the jurisdiction of another state's courts. The earlier court selectively applied the sovereign immunity theory, but the current court ruled that "the sovereign immunity theory must be recognized." Although our courts are not obligated to follow it, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has consistently ruled based on sovereign immunity. For example, in a damages lawsuit filed by Luigi Ferrini, an Italian who was forced to work in a German military factory during World War II, the Italian Supreme Court recognized Germany’s liability, but the ICJ ruled in 2012 in favor of Germany based on sovereign immunity. The current court also referenced this ruling, stating, "It is difficult for our courts to deny part of international customary law through ordinary interpretation." The court further explained, "It cannot be considered permissible to claim damages against foreign defendants under international customary law, nor can such a result be seen as contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea."

The court also addressed the 2015 agreement on the comfort women issue, stating, "It meets diplomatic requirements and has the character of a remedy." While acknowledging procedural and substantive problems, such as not gathering victims’ opinions during the agreement process, the court said, "These circumstances alone do not constitute an abuse or excess of discretion." It added, "Since the agreement involves another party, it cannot reflect only the position of the Republic of Korea unilaterally." Although the victims did not consent to the agreement, "procedures to gather victims’ opinions were conducted, and some victims received cash from the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation." Toward the end of the ruling, the court said, "The victims endured great suffering, and the efforts and achievements of the Republic of Korea appear insufficient to restore the victims’ pain and damage," but emphasized, "The resolution of the comfort women issue, including victim recovery, must be achieved through diplomatic negotiations and related efforts."

Japan has consistently remained unresponsive to lawsuits based on state immunity. As a result, the trial stalled for years until the court’s decision to serve notice publicly led to the lawsuit being filed in December 2016. Public notice service is a system where, if normal service is not possible, posting the reason publicly is considered as service. The case was originally scheduled for a ruling on January 13 but the court decided additional hearings were necessary and resumed arguments. The court held one hearing last month to hear the plaintiff’s representative’s position and reached a conclusion on this day.

Meanwhile, the Japanese government did not respond to the January ruling, stating, "We cannot recognize South Korea’s jurisdiction and have no intention to appeal," and the ruling was finalized as is. The Japanese government is expected to maintain the same principle regarding this ruling. On the other hand, grandmother Lee Yong-soo, who appeared in court on this day, stated after the ruling, "We will take this to the International Court of Justice." She has been requesting both South Korea and Japan to refer the comfort women issue to the ICJ.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.