일제강제징용 피해자의 법적 구제에 관한 국제법적 쟁점과 향후 전망 - 2012년 대법원 판결을 중심으로 -
Issues of International Law concerning the Remedy for the Victims of Compulsory Draft during the Japanese Occupation of Korea - Critical Review of the 2012 Supreme Court Judgments and Prospect for the Probable Legal Evolvements
0
조회
0
다운로드
21
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Almost all efforts of Koreans who were victims of compulsory draft during the last period of Japanese occupation of Korea to acquire legal remedy for the damages inflicted upon them by Japanese government or Japanese nationals (including juridical persons) ended without any success. They have raised various kinds of lawsuits before the courts of Japan only to lose the cases. Disappointed with these results, they raised similar lawsuits before the Korean courts and the outcomes were not different from Japanese courts' judgments till the Supreme Court of Korea delivered path breaking judgments on May 24, 2012. These two judgments by Korean Supreme Court, reversing two High Court judgments, recognized the responsibility of two Japanese companies to make compensation for the damages suffered by plaintiffs. Though it is beyond any doubt that the conclusions of the Supreme Court's judgments are in accordance with demand of justice, there are some doubtful points with regard to the legal grounds for the decisions. When it comes to the issues of international law of the cases, the judgments suggest that plaintiffs' rights for the compensation of their damages were not the objects of the 1965 Claims Rights Settlement Agreement between Korea and Japan. The judgments further say that, even thought their 'claims rights' might be admitted to be included in the objects of the 1965 Agreement, the rights waived there are only the right of diplomatic protection owned by state, and plaintiffs' individual rights are never waived by the Agreement. The detailed review of the reasons for the former conclusion of the Supreme Court in this study shows that they are not so persuasive. Similar review of the legal grounds for the latter conclusion shows that this part of the conclusions had better be based upon Japanese government's persistent argument of non-extinguishment of individual claims rights by the 1965 Agreement. As Japanese government has very different view from the Supreme Court of Korea about the settlement of the plaintiffs' rights for alleged compensation, it is highly probable that Japan will call for the state responsibility of Korea when Korean administration enforce the execution of the Korean courts' decisions. In that sense, it may be said that a legal dispute is already arisen between Japan and Korea.
Abstract
Almost all efforts of Koreans who were victims of compulsory draft during the last period of Japanese occupation of Korea to acquire legal remedy for the damages inflicted upon them by Japanese government or Japanese nationals (including juridical persons) ended without any success. They have raised various kinds of lawsuits before the courts of Japan only to lose the cases. Disappointed with these results, they raised similar lawsuits before the Korean courts and the outcomes were not different from Japanese courts' judgments till the Supreme Court of Korea delivered path breaking judgments on May 24, 2012. These two judgments by Korean Supreme Court, reversing two High Court judgments, recognized the responsibility of two Japanese companies to make compensation for the damages suffered by plaintiffs. Though it is beyond any doubt that the conclusions of the Supreme Court's judgments are in accordance with demand of justice, there are some doubtful points with regard to the legal grounds for the decisions. When it comes to the issues of international law of the cases, the judgments suggest that plaintiffs' rights for the compensation of their damages were not the objects of the 1965 Claims Rights Settlement Agreement between Korea and Japan. The judgments further say that, even thought their 'claims rights' might be admitted to be included in the objects of the 1965 Agreement, the rights waived there are only the right of diplomatic protection owned by state, and plaintiffs' individual rights are never waived by the Agreement. The detailed review of the reasons for the former conclusion of the Supreme Court in this study shows that they are not so persuasive. Similar review of the legal grounds for the latter conclusion shows that this part of the conclusions had better be based upon Japanese government's persistent argument of non-extinguishment of individual claims rights by the 1965 Agreement. As Japanese government has very different view from the Supreme Court of Korea about the settlement of the plaintiffs' rights for alleged compensation, it is highly probable that Japan will call for the state responsibility of Korea when Korean administration enforce the execution of the Korean courts' decisions. In that sense, it may be said that a legal dispute is already arisen between Japan and Korea.
참고문헌 (42)
- 김대순, "국제법론(17판)" (2013), 삼영사
- 김석현, "국제법상 국가책임" (2007), 삼영사
- 이원덕, "한일 과거사 처리의 원점" (1996), 서울대학교 출판부
- 이한기, "신고 국제법강의" (1990), 박영사
- 太田 修, "韓日 請求權 交涉 硏究", 박사, pp.2000
- 김창록, "일본에서의 대일과거청산소송", 법사학연구, (35), pp.329~402 (2007), 한국법사학회
- 박배근, "1965년 ‘한일청구권협정’과 개인의 청구권", 국제법평론 (2001)
- 석광현, "강제징용배상 및 임금 청구그이 준거법", 2013년 서울대학교 법학연구소 학술대회 자료집 (2013)
- 장박진, "한일회담에서의 피해보상 교섭의 변화과정 분석 -식민지관계 청산에 대한 '배상', '청구권', '경제협력' 방식의 '연속성'을 중심으로-", 정신문화연구, 31(1), pp.209~241 (2008), 한국학중앙연구원
- 장박진, "한일회담 청구권 교섭에서의 세부 항목 변천의 실증분석 : 대일 8항목 요구 제5항의 해부", 정신문화연구, 34(1), pp.85~118 (2011), 한국학중앙연구원
- 정인섭, "1965년 韓日 請求權協定 對象範圍에 관한 연구", 省谷論叢, 25 (1994)
- 최영호, "韓國政府의 對日 民間請求權 補償 過程", 韓日民族問題硏究, (8), pp.225~254 (2005), 한일민족문제학회
- 한형건, "日帝下 朝鮮人 强制徵用에 대한 日本의 戰後補償에 관한 國際法的 問題", 국제법학회논총, 40(1) (1995)
- 太田 修, "기본조약 제2조 문제와 청구권 문제에서의 일본 정부의 식민지 지배 인식․ ‘청구권’ 개념에 대해", 국제학술심포지엄 자료집 (2009), 민족문제연구소
- 金東勳, "戰後補償をめぐる法的諸問題, In 在日韓國․朝鮮人の戰後補償" (1991), 明石書店
- 東 壽太郞, "涉外判例硏究", ジュリスト, (445) (1970)
- 山手治之, "日本の戦後処理条約における賠償·請求権放棄条項(一)", 京都学園法学, (1) (2001)
- 小畑 郁, "請求権放棄条項の解釈の変遷, In 国際人権法と憲法" (2006), 信山社
- I. Brownlie, "Principles of Public International Law, 5th ed" (1998), Clarendon Press
- Burns H. Weston, "International Claims : Their Settlement by Lump Sum Agreements, 1975-1995" (1999), Transnational Publishers
- D. W. Bowett, "Estoppel before International Tribunals and Its Relation to Acquiescence", British Year Book of International Law, 33, pp.195~
- "대법원 2012. 5. 24 선고 2009다22549 판결", ~ (2012)
- "대법원 2012. 5. 24 선고 2009다68620 판결", ~ (2012)
- "부산고등법원 2013. 7. 30. 선고 2012나4497 판결", ~ (2013)
- "서울고등법원 2013. 7. 10. 선고 2012나44947 판결", ~ (2013)
- "서울고등법원 2009. 7. 16 선고 2008나49129 판결", ~ (2009)
- "부산고등법원 2009. 2. 3. 선고 2007나4288 판결", ~ (2009)
- "서울중앙지방법원 2008. 4. 3. 선고 2005가합16473호 판결", ~ (2008)
- "부산지방법원 2007. 2. 2. 선고 2000가합7960 판결", ~ (2007)
- 名古屋地方裁判所, "平16(ワ)282号・平11(ワ)764号・平12(ワ)5341 号 판결", ~ (2005)
- 名古屋高等裁判所, "2007. 5. 31. 平17(ネ)374号 판결 114 F.Supp.2d 939 (N.D.Cal", ~ (2000)
- "경향신문, 2012년 5월 22일자", ~ (2012)
- "국민일보, 2013년 7월 31일자", ~ (2013)
- "동아일보, 2013년 8월 19일자", ~ (2013)
- "한국일보, 2013년 8월 22일자", ~ (2013)
- "니혼게이자이(日本経済)신문, 2013년 7월 10일자 인터넷판" (2013), 니혼게이자이[URL]
- "산케이(産經)신문, 2013년 8월 30일자", ~ (2013)
- "아사히신문, 2013년 7월 31일자", ~ (2013)
- "日本と大韓民國との間の條約及び協定等に関する特別委員會会 議録", ~ (1965)
- "豫算委員會會議錄", ~ (1991)
- "豫算委員會 會議錄", ~ (1993)
