The Supreme Court Decision on the Liability of Japanese Company for Forced Labor during the Japanese Colonial Era and Its Implications
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Korean Supreme Court issued an en banc decision (“the Decision at Issue”) on the liability of a Japanese company for forcing the plaintiff into labor during World War II and a majority opinion affirmed the liability of the Japanese company. The main issue of the Decision at Issue was whether the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and ROK (“the Claims Agreement”) addressed the right to damages for mental harm caused by forced labor. This article analyzes the Decision at Issue from the perspective of international customary rules. Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“the Vienna Convention”) which stipulated rules concerning interpretation of treaties, have been considered to reflect international customary rules. As the Vienna Convention provided, a treaty should be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the terms of the treaty in the light of its purpose and in their context together with subsequent practices. The Claims Agreement was for solving civil matter of property and obligation between the two countries rather than for addressing the matter arising from wrongdoing during Japanese colonial occupation. This succinctly explains why terms like “reparation” or “wrongdoing during the Japanese rule” are absent from the Claims Agreement unlike other treaties between Japan and other injured nations that were provided reparations. The Claims Agreement provided that the problems concerning the “claims” are settled completely. However, the Claims Agreement did not define “claim”. Claim can be construed as “diplomatic protection” based on the context, inferred by para. 2(h) of the Agreed Minutes, and subsequent practices on the side of Japan. The scope of the Claims Agreement, which was signed when Japan denied the illegality of its colonial rule over Korea, is inherently limited. This article also offers a rebuttal to the argument that the Claims Agreement is a lump sum agreement. In addition, this article submits the notion that Eight Items did not cover the plaintiffs’ rights on the grounds of provisions of the National Service Draft Ordinance and negotiation process for concluding the Claims Agreement. In sum, the legal logic of the Decision at Issue can be said to be acceptable and founded upon firm argumentation. The Decision at Issue has significant implications: constitutional value can play a pivotal role in interpretation of treaties and the interpretation of treaties should be made in deference to the fundamental ideology of protection of human rights.
Abstract
The Korean Supreme Court issued an en banc decision (“the Decision at Issue”) on the liability of a Japanese company for forcing the plaintiff into labor during World War II and a majority opinion affirmed the liability of the Japanese company. The main issue of the Decision at Issue was whether the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and ROK (“the Claims Agreement”) addressed the right to damages for mental harm caused by forced labor. This article analyzes the Decision at Issue from the perspective of international customary rules. Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“the Vienna Convention”) which stipulated rules concerning interpretation of treaties, have been considered to reflect international customary rules. As the Vienna Convention provided, a treaty should be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the terms of the treaty in the light of its purpose and in their context together with subsequent practices. The Claims Agreement was for solving civil matter of property and obligation between the two countries rather than for addressing the matter arising from wrongdoing during Japanese colonial occupation. This succinctly explains why terms like “reparation” or “wrongdoing during the Japanese rule” are absent from the Claims Agreement unlike other treaties between Japan and other injured nations that were provided reparations. The Claims Agreement provided that the problems concerning the “claims” are settled completely. However, the Claims Agreement did not define “claim”. Claim can be construed as “diplomatic protection” based on the context, inferred by para. 2(h) of the Agreed Minutes, and subsequent practices on the side of Japan. The scope of the Claims Agreement, which was signed when Japan denied the illegality of its colonial rule over Korea, is inherently limited. This article also offers a rebuttal to the argument that the Claims Agreement is a lump sum agreement. In addition, this article submits the notion that Eight Items did not cover the plaintiffs’ rights on the grounds of provisions of the National Service Draft Ordinance and negotiation process for concluding the Claims Agreement. In sum, the legal logic of the Decision at Issue can be said to be acceptable and founded upon firm argumentation. The Decision at Issue has significant implications: constitutional value can play a pivotal role in interpretation of treaties and the interpretation of treaties should be made in deference to the fundamental ideology of protection of human rights.
참고문헌 (49)
- "Japan takes economic retaliation against Korea for forced labor ruling" (2019)[URL]
- 천경훈, "전후 일본의 재벌해체와 채무귀속 - 일제강제징용사건의 회사법적 문제에 관한 검토 -", 서울대학교 법학, 54(3), pp.433~470 (2013), 법학연구소
- 남효순, "일제징용시 일본기업의 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권의 소멸시효남용에 관한 연구 - 대법원 2012. 5. 24. 선고 2009다68620 판결 -", 서울대학교 법학, 54(3), pp.393~432 (2013), 법학연구소
- 이은경, "강제징용 배상판결에서 나타난 대일민간인청구권과 소멸시효 - 대법원 2012.05.24.선고 2009다68620 판결을 중심으로 -", 외법논집, 41(2), pp.291~313 (2017), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 이홍렬, "강제징용피해와 손해배상책임 - 대판 2012.5.24, 2009다22549를 중심으로 -", 집합건물법학, 10, pp.189~226 (2012), 한국집합건물법학회
- Dae Soon Kim, , pp.251~ (2015)
- Chung In-Seop, , pp.173~ (2016)
- "Draft Conclusions on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties" (2018)[URL]
- "Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Sixty-fifth Session" (2013)[URL]
- "Id. Conclusion 5 Commentary, ¶ 2, at 42", ~
- "Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages", WTO Docs. WT, AB, pp.R, WT, DS10[DOI]
- 이근관, "한일청구권협정상 강제징용배상청구권 처리에 대한 국제법적 검토", 서울대학교 법학, 54(3), pp.327~391 (2013), 법학연구소
- "Houritzujihou", 1965
- "The Minutes of the Special Committee on the Treaty and the Agreement between Japan and ROK at the House of Representatives"[URL]
- 김창록, "한일 청구권협정 에 의해 ‘해결’된 ‘권리’ - 일제 ‘강제동원’ 피해 관련 대법원 판결을 소재로 -", 법학논고, (49), pp.791~835 (2015), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 강병근, "국제법적 관점에서 본 일제강제징용 배상판결의 주요쟁점에 관한 연구", 저스티스, 143, pp.234~268 (2014), 한국법학원
- "Planning Group for Disclosure of Korean-Japanese Meeting Document" (2005)[URL]
- "Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of Indonesia, Japan-Indon" (1958)[URL]
- "The Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, Japan-China" (1972)[URL]
- 주진열, "1965년 한일 청구권협정과 개인청구권 사건의 국제법 쟁점에 대한 고찰: 대법원 2018. 10. 30. 선고 2013다61381 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로", 서울국제법연구, 25(2), pp.173~218 (2018), 서울국제법연구원[DOI]
- 손경찬, "강제징용 손해배상의 타당성과 한일청구권협정의 법적 성격 (대법원 2018. 10. 30. 선고 2013다61381 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로)", 법학논총, 26(1), pp.323~367 (2019), 법학연구원[DOI]
- "SONGKOKNONCHONG", 1994, 519~
- Wilhelm Karl Geck, "Encyclopedia of Public International Law", pp.100~ (1987)
- The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, "John Dugard", 114~ (2012)
- "PUSAN NAT’L U. L. REV", 2001, 77~
- 백범석, "국제인권법상 피해자의 권리와 피해자 중심적 접근(victim-centered approach)", 국제법학회논총, 63(1), pp.165~205 (2018), 대한국제법학회
- 이진규, "외교적 보호제도의 현대적 해석 - 개인의 권리 및 인권 보호적 성격에 주목하며 -", 국제법학회논총, 56(1), pp.117~140 (2011), 대한국제법학회
- McDougal ET AL., "Human Rights and World Public Order", pp.221~ (2019)
- 도시환, "한일청구권협정 관련 대법원 판결의 국제법적 평가", 국제사법연구, 19(1), pp.27~63 (2013), 한국국제사법학회
- Boo-Chan Kim, , pp.296~ (2014), Bogosa
- "Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 679", ~ (1981)
- "Belk v. United States, 858 F.2d 706, 709", ~ (1988)
- "Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424, 468", ~ (1999)
- Nicholas S. Richard, "Waivers of Individual Claims via Treaty: Chinese Slave Laborers, Japanese Jurisprudence, and the Solution of the European Court of Human rights", Brook J. Int’l L, 34, pp.245~ (2009)
- 권영준, "2018년 민법 판례 동향", 서울대학교 법학, 60(1), pp.255~397 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 박배근, "일제강제징용 피해자의 법적 구제에 관한 국제법적 쟁점과 향후 전망 - 2012년 대법원 판결을 중심으로 -", 법학논총, 30(3), pp.47~73 (2013), 법학연구소
- 장박진, "한일회담 청구권 교섭에서의 세부 항목 변천의 실증분석 : 대일 8항목 요구 제5항의 해부", 한국학, 34(1), pp.85~118 (2011), 한국학중앙연구원[DOI]
- 석광현, "강제징용배상에 관한 일본판결의 승인 가부", 국제사법연구, 19(1), pp.103~155 (2013), 한국국제사법학회
- 박선아, "일본 전범기업을 상대로 한 민사소송의 의의와 과제- 대법원 2012. 5. 24. 선고 2009다22549 판결 -", 법조, 62(9), pp.239~285 (2013), 법조협회[DOI]
- 이근관, "외교문제에 대한 사법자제의 원리― 비교법적 고찰 ―", 서울국제법연구, 20(2), pp.25~71 (2013), 서울국제법연구원
- "Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186", ~ (1962)
- Louis Henkin, "There a “Political Question” Doctrine?", Yale L.J, 85, pp.597~ (1976)
- David Cole, "Challenging Covert War: The Politics of the Political Question Doctrine", Harv. Int’l L. J, 26, pp.155~ (1985)
- Harold Hongju Koh, "The National Security Constitution: Sharing Power after the Iran-Contra Affair", pp.221~224 (1990), Yale University Press
- 공두현, "강제동원 손해배상 판결: 역사적 부정의와 시정적 정의", 법철학연구, 22(1), pp.313~380 (2019), 한국법철학회[DOI]
- 권영준, "민사재판에 있어서 이론, 법리, 실무", 서울대학교 법학, 49(3), pp.313~354 (2008), 법학연구소
- "South Korean Judiciary Shakes Japan-South Korea Relations, International Circumstances in the Asia-Pacific Series" (2016)[URL]