Four Victims Refusing 'Three-Party Repayment' Deposit Judgment Money... Legal Disputes Expected (Comprehensive)

Refusal to Accept Solution for Forced Mobilization 'Third-Party Compensation'
4 Individuals Targeted... Ministry of Foreign Affairs Initiates Deposit Procedure
Legal Disputes Expected if Deposit Invalidity Lawsuit Filed

The government announced on the 3rd that it has initiated the deposit procedure for four victims and bereaved families who have not received compensation for forced labor damages. A deposit is a system in which, if a creditor refuses to receive payment, the debtor can deposit the money at the court's deposit office to be relieved of the debt. This is interpreted as the government effectively concluding the compensation process by entrusting the judgment money to the court and allowing the victims or their families to collect it.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release on the same day announcing the start of the deposit procedure and explained, “The victims and bereaved families concerned can receive the judgment money at any time.”

Deposit procedure initiated for 4 individuals who rejected the forced labor ‘third-party compensation’ solution

Seo Min-jung, Director of the Asia-Pacific Bureau at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Shim Gyu-seon, Chairman of the Foundation for Victims of Forced Mobilization under Japanese Rule, are holding a briefing on Korea-Japan relations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the 13th. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

Since announcing the forced labor compensation solution on March 6, the government has been paying the judgment money through the Foundation for Supporting Victims of Forced Mobilization under Japanese Imperial Rule. Among the 15 victims and bereaved families eligible to receive the judgment money, 11, including one surviving victim, have received the payment so far.

The remaining four victims who did not accept the ‘third-party compensation solution’ officially expressed their refusal to the government’s solution by sending a certified letter to the foundation. This group includes surviving victims such as grandfather Lee Chunsik, a victim of Nippon Steel, and grandmother Yang Geumdeok, a victim of the Mitsubishi forced labor corps.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained, “Since announcing the forced labor solution, the government, together with the foundation, has made detailed efforts to explain the government’s solution and the progress so far to the victims or their families and to seek their understanding.” It added, “The government plans to continue sincere efforts to seek understanding from each victim and bereaved family member even after the deposit procedure.”

Legal disputes expected if deposit invalidation lawsuits arise

Legal disputes are also anticipated. As the government enters the legal procedure of deposit, victims who refused to receive the judgment money may oppose it. If a deposit is made, the legal claims that victims hold against Japanese companies may be extinguished on the surface. There is a possibility that victims may file invalidation lawsuits against the deposit in protest.

In fact, immediately after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ announcement, lawyers Im Jaeseong and Kim Seeun, representatives of the forced labor victims’ lawsuit, held a press conference in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building, pointing out the illegality and unfairness of the government’s announcement of third-party deposit compensation for victims and families who did not accept the third-party compensation solution.

Article 469 of the Korean Civil Act stipulates that a third party may also perform debt repayment. However, it includes a proviso that this does not apply if the nature of the debt or the parties’ declarations do not allow it. There has been no precedent on how to resolve cases where the creditor (victim) wants to receive repayment only from a specific debtor, as in forced labor cases. It is unusual for a third party to step in and make a repayment that neither the creditor nor the debtor desires. Therefore, creditors may challenge the legality of third-party repayment based on the proviso clause of Article 469, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act.

Regarding this, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official said, “We do not rule out the possibility of litigation, but we will not comment on hypothetical situations.”

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