Gwangju District Court: "No Compensation Payment for Forced Mobilization"... 'Gongtak' Discord

Refusal to Accept Solution for Forced Mobilization 'Third-Party Compensation'
4 Individuals Targeted... Ministry of Foreign Affairs Initiates Deposit Procedure
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Expresses "Regret" Over Gwangju District Court's 'Non-Acceptance' Decision

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to deposit compensation payments for victims of forced labor during the Japanese colonial period with the court, but discord is growing as a court clerk at the Gwangju District Court issued a 'non-acceptance decision.'

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 4th, the government initiated the deposit procedure for four victims of forced labor the day before, but a court clerk at the Gwangju District Court issued a 'non-acceptance' decision regarding the deposit for grandmother Yang Geum-deok. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed strong regret, using phrases such as “an unprecedented case” and “a violation of rights.” The Ministry stated it would immediately begin an objection procedure, while victim groups also protested the deposit decision, escalating the discord.

Deposit Made... Gwangju District Court’s ‘Non-Acceptance’ Sparks Multiple Issues

[Image source=Yonhap News]

A deposit refers to a system where a creditor refuses to receive payment, so the debtor deposits the money with the court’s deposit office to be relieved of the debt. By depositing the judgment amount with the court and allowing the victims or their bereaved families to collect it, the government intends to effectively conclude the compensation process. Once a deposit is made, the legal claims victims hold against Japanese companies may be extinguished on the surface. Victim groups have opposed the deposit and hinted at the possibility of filing invalidation lawsuits.

Moreover, the Gwangju District Court’s ‘non-acceptance’ decision has become a trigger. The court stated that “the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a party to the matter and therefore cannot initiate objection procedures” regarding the government’s deposit application. The court judged that only the parties involved can file objections to deposit applications and court deposit dispositions. In the case of grandmother Yang Geum-deok, whose deposit acceptance was refused by the Gwangju District Court, she had previously submitted a statement to the court expressing that she would not accept the deposit through third-party payment.

Additionally, the deposit application submitted for grandfather Lee Chun-sik, a victim of forced labor during the Japanese colonial period, was rejected due to incomplete documents. If the foundation that made the deposit files an objection to the deposit disposition, the presiding judge can maintain or amend the decision.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “Gwangju District Court Violates Rights... Will File Objection”

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 entering the press room at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the 13th to hold a briefing on Korea-Japan relations. Photo by Dong-joo Yoon doso7@

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release systematically rebutting the Gwangju District Court’s judgment. The Ministry criticized, “The court clerk issued a non-acceptance decision by citing ‘legal principles on third-party payment’ against a deposit application that fully met formal requirements, which exceeds the authority of the court clerk.” It added that the deposit system operates on the premise of formal examination authority of court clerks, mechanical processing of deposit affairs, and formal handling, as established by a Supreme Court precedent (96Da11747 Grand Bench ruling).

The Ministry stated, “(This) infringes upon the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to be judged by a judge’ and is also an unprecedented case.” It also mentioned, “The court clerk made the ‘non-acceptance decision’ after consulting other colleagues, which violates the ‘Court Practice Manual’ that stipulates court clerks should independently make judgments.”

The Ministry emphasized that thorough legal review was conducted before pursuing the deposit. It added, “We find it difficult to accept the single non-acceptance decision legally. We will immediately initiate objection procedures to seek the court’s correct judgment and will do our best to ensure the smooth recovery of victims.”

Forced Labor Groups Oppose Deposit... Likely to Pursue Invalidation Lawsuits

[Image source=Yonhap News]

However, as forced labor litigation representative groups join the opposition to the deposit decision, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ position is narrowing.

Four plaintiffs in the forced labor compensation lawsuits who did not accept the government’s ‘third-party payment’ solution announced on the 3rd that they would consider separate lawsuits related to the court deposit procedure for compensation. Lawyers Lim Jae-sung and Kim Se-eun, representatives for forced labor victims Lee Chun-sik and the late Jeong Chang-hee, held a press conference in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building the day before and explained, "Once the deposit is completed, the Forced Labor Victims Support Foundation (hereinafter the Foundation) will submit documents confirming the deposit to the forced execution case we are handling," and "We plan to submit opinions stating that the deposit is invalid and requesting the prompt continuation of execution procedures."

At the event, lawyer Lim argued, “Under civil law, if the party (creditor) expresses an intention not to allow third-party payment, payment cannot be made,” and “It is an ineffective payment that clearly contradicts the creditor’s intention.”

Article 469 of our Civil Code stipulates that a third party may also make payment of a debt. However, it includes a proviso that this does not apply when the nature of the debt or the parties’ declarations do not allow it. The problem is that there is no precedent on how to resolve cases where the creditor (victim) wants to receive payment only from a specific debtor, as in forced labor cases. It is rare for a third party to make a payment that neither the creditor nor debtor desires. Therefore, creditors can dispute the legality of third-party payment based on the proviso clause of Article 469, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code.

The Korea-Japan Historical Justice and Peace Action also held a press conference in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the same day, stating, “Under our civil law, a person not qualified to make payment cannot make a deposit with the court,” and “A deposit against the victim’s will is invalid.” They criticized, “The initiation of the deposit procedure is an extension of repression against the historical justice movement.”

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