Supreme Court Again Accepts Compensation Claim by Japanese Forced Labor Victim... Compensation Amount 100 Million Won

Japan Steel Recognized Liability for Compensation
Victim's Side Confirmed with 100 Million Won Compensation Judgment

The Supreme Court once again ruled in favor of the victims in a damages claim lawsuit filed by the bereaved families of forced labor victims against a Japanese company. Following two victories for the victims last month, the Supreme Court delivered the same judgment this time as well.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

On the 11th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) upheld the appellate court's partial ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Nippon Steel to pay approximately 100 million KRW in total compensation to three bereaved family members, including Jeong, of forced labor victim Kim, in the damages claim lawsuit.

Regarding the key issue in this case?the Japanese company's statute of limitations claim?the Supreme Court ruled that there was a factual impediment preventing the exercise of rights, and thus the Japanese company's statute of limitations defense constituted an abuse of rights.

The court stated, "Until the 2018 plenary session ruling on damages claims by forced labor victims against Japanese companies, the plaintiffs objectively faced factual impediments that prevented them from exercising their rights against the defendant."

The court explained, "In the May 24, 2012 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the damages claims for illegal acts by Japanese companies against victims forcibly mobilized during the Japanese colonial period were not extinguished because they were not included in the scope of the Claims Agreement."

It continued, "However, even after the 2012 ruling, controversy persisted domestically and internationally over whether damages claims for illegal acts by Japanese companies against forced labor victims were covered by the Claims Agreement. The Japanese government, a party to the Claims Agreement, maintained the position that claims for damages arising from inhumane illegal acts or colonial rule directly linked to the past Japanese government or Japanese companies were extinguished under the Claims Agreement. The defendant and other Japanese companies concurred and refused compensation. Meanwhile, the South Korean government took no official stance other than to observe the remaining judicial procedures."

The court noted, "The 2012 ruling was a remand decision and did not definitively recognize the rights of the parties involved. Furthermore, the binding effect of the remand ruling might not apply depending on new claims and evidence submitted in the retrial. Under these circumstances, victims like the plaintiffs could reasonably have doubts about whether they could obtain substantial relief through individual lawsuits against Japanese companies even after the 2012 ruling."

The court added, "In the 2012 ruling on case 2009Da68620, the Supreme Court's 2018 plenary session ruling on October 30 determined that claims for consolation money based on illegal acts by Japanese companies against forced labor victims were not included in the scope of the Claims Agreement. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling after remand and dismissed the appeal. Through this, the Supreme Court clearly and finally established the legal view that claims for consolation money by forced labor victims against Japanese companies, based on inhumane illegal acts directly linked to Japan's illegal colonial rule and aggressive war on the Korean Peninsula, are not covered by the Claims Agreement."

It concluded, "Ultimately, the 2018 plenary session ruling marked the point at which judicial relief for forced labor victims became certain in South Korea. Considering these circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiffs, as forced labor victims or their heirs, faced factual impediments preventing them from exercising their rights against the defendant until the 2018 plenary session ruling was issued."

Kim was forcibly mobilized at age 18 in 1943 during the Pacific War and forced to work at Nippon Steel's steelworks in Kyushu, Japan. He worked under harsh conditions without receiving any wages and returned to Korea in 1946 after liberation.

Kim passed away in November 2012, and his wife Jeong and children filed this lawsuit in May 2015 in a Korean court, demanding Nippon Steel pay 100 million KRW in damages.

The Seoul Central District Court, which handled the first trial, ruled that Nippon Steel must pay a total of 100 million KRW in consolation money to Kim's three bereaved family members. Nippon Steel appealed, but the appeal was dismissed, and the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion.

The Supreme Court has previously affirmed rulings recognizing Japanese companies' liability in similar forced labor lawsuits involving comparable legal issues.

In October 2018, the Supreme Court's plenary session ruled that "even though some compensation and settlement were made between Korea and Japan under the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement, individual claims for damages and Japanese companies' responsibilities do not disappear," thereby siding with the victims.

Since that ruling, forced labor victims have been winning damages lawsuits one after another. On the 28th of last month, the Supreme Court upheld a final victory in an appeal involving 14 forced labor victims and their families, including the late Hong Soon-ui, who sued Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. On the 21st of last month, the Supreme Court also confirmed a lower court ruling ordering Japanese companies to pay between 100 million and 150 million KRW each in damages to forced labor victims in a lawsuit against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

Victims who have secured confirmed favorable rulings have initiated procedures to forcibly seize the domestic assets of Japanese companies that refused to pay damages, but the Japanese side has delayed the process through appeals and re-appeals, leaving the matter pending before the Supreme Court.

With a change in administration, the government proposed a "third-party payment plan," where the Korean government and companies would pay the damages on behalf of Japan to improve relations. However, some victims refuse to accept the compensation.

This lawsuit is called the "second lawsuit" because it was filed by other victims who gained courage after the Supreme Court first recognized the right to claim damages against Nippon Steel in 2012.

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