2012년 대법원 강제동원 판결의 의의 = 2012 Supreme Court Ruling on Compulsory Mobilization

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this article is to examine the rulings sentenced on May 24, 2012 by the Supreme Court of Korea, which are newly-highlighted in 2018. The rulings were on lawsuits filed by victims who had been forced into compulsory labor by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Nippon Steel Corporation in the Japanese colonial period.
The first meaning of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it clearly outlines the scope of the rights settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’ in 1965. The Supreme Court ruled that the “‘Claims Agreement’ is not a negotiation for claiming the Japanese colonial rule, but for resolving the financial and civil bond-debt relationship between Korea and Japan based on Article 4 of the San Francisco Treaty by political agreement”, and that “it is difficult to say that the right to claim for damages arising from anti-humanitarian torts or directly linked to the colonial rule was included in the scope of the ‘Claims Agreement.’ ” This declaration of the Supreme Court ruling is reasonable in light of international law standards for the interpretation of treaties.
The second significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it clearly declares that the compulsory mobilization, including forced emigration and forced labor, has not been settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’. The Supreme Court ruling declared that the compulsory mobilization was a anti-humanitarian tort or illegal acts directly linked to the colonial rule and it was not settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’. This declaration of the Supreme Court, which articulates that Japanese ‘National Mobilization Law’ and ‘Conscription Ordinance’ were not valid because they were not compatible with the constitutional spirit of the Republic of Korea; that the forced emigration and forced labor of Japanese government and companies were not ‘legal conscription’ but ‘illegal compulsory mobilization’; and that the ‘illegal compulsory mobilization’ problem was not settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’, is reasonable in light of the preamble, Article 100 and Article 101 of 1948 Constitution and the preamble of the present Constitution.
The third and largest significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it clearly declares that “the Japanese domination of the Korean peninsula during the Japanese colonial period is an illegal occupation in terms of norms, and the effect of juridical relations incompatible with the constitutional spirit of the Republic of Korea should be excluded.” Whereas it is surprisingly little noticed, this declaration is nothing more than a landmark declaration of the legal identity of Korea, which makes clear the legal discontinuity between the period under Japanese occupation and that after the liberation.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 대한민국정부, "한일회담백서"
• 2 이근관, "한일청구권협정상 강제징용배상청구권 처리에 대한 국제법적 검토" 법학연구소 54 (54): 327-391, 2013
• 3 김창록, "한일 청구권협정 에 의해 ‘해결’된 ‘권리’ - 일제 ‘강제동원’ 피해 관련 대법원 판결을 소재로 -" 법학연구원 (49) : 791-835, 2015
• 4 "한·일협정 틀서 해결된 사안이지만……개인 청구권은 대법원 판단에 동의"
• 5 "징용소송 진행 보고받은 박근혜 “큰일 나겠다, 잘 대처하라” 지시"
• 6 박배근, "일제강제징용 피해자의 법적 구제에 관한 국제법적 쟁점과 향후 전망 - 2012년 대법원 판결을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 30 (30): 47-73, 2013
• 7 "서울중앙지방법원 2008.4.3 선고 2005가합16473 판결"
• 8 "서울고등법원 2009.7.16 선고 2008나49129 판결"
• 9 "부산지방법원 2007.2.2. 선고 2000가합7960 판결"
• 10 "부산고등법원 2009.2.3. 선고 2007나4288 판결"
• 11 "문재인 대통령 제72주년 광복절 경축사－“대한민국의 국익이 최우선이고 정의입니다.”"
• 12 "문 대통령 “한반도에 두 번 다시 전쟁 없을 것”"
• 13 대한민국정부, "대한민국과 일본국간의 조약 및 협정 해설"
• 14 "대법원 2018.11.29. 선고 2013다67587 판결"
• 15 "대법원 2018.10.30. 선고 2013다61381 판결"
• 16 "대법원 2012.5.24. 선고 2009다68620 판결"
• 17 "대법원 2012.5.24. 선고 2009다22549 판결"
• 18 대한민국정부, "기본관계문서 실무자 회의 토의 요약"
• 19 국무총리실한일수교회담문서공개등대책기획단, "국무총리실한일수교회담문서공개등대책기획단 활동 백서" 2007
• 20 高麗大學校 亞細亞問題硏究所 日本硏究室, "韓日關係資料集<第一輯>" 高麗大學校出版部 1976
• 21 "韓国は徴用工問題を蒸し返すな"
• 22 "第50回 国会 衆議院 日本国と大韓民国との間の条約及び協定等に関する特別委員会議録 第10号"
• 23 "第197回 国会 衆議院 外務委員会議録 第２号"
• 24 "最高裁判所第一小法廷 平成17年 (受) 第1977号"
• 25 "最高裁判所第一小法廷 平成15年 (オ) 第340号"
• 26 "日관방장관 “안중근은 테러리스트”……기념관 개관 항의(종합)"
• 27 谷田正躬, "日韓条約と国内法の解説(『時の法令』別冊)" 大蔵省印刷局 1966
• 28 "慎重さ欠く『徴用工』言及"
• 29 "徴用工問題　歴史再燃防ぐ努力こそ"
• 30 "徴用工と日韓外交の根幹を崩すな"
• 31 "広島高等裁判所 平成11年 (ネ) 第206号"
• 32 "広島地方裁判所 平成７年 (ワ) 第2158号, 平成8年 (ワ) 第1162号, 平成10年 (ワ) 第649号"
• 33 "大韓民国大法院による日本企業に対する判決確定について(外務大臣談話)"
• 34 "大阪高等裁判所 平成13年 (ネ) 第1859号"
• 35 "大阪地方裁判所 平成9年 (ワ) 第13134號等"
• 36 "変節で日韓関係を壊すのか"
• 37 "国交の基盤まで崩すのか"
• 38 김창록, "制令에 관한 연구" 한국법사학회 (26) : 109-171, 2002
• 39 국무조정실, "[보도자료] 한일회담 문서공개 후속대책 관련 민관공동위원회 개최"
• 40 김창록, "1948년 헌법 제100조 : 4·3계엄령을 통해 본 일제법령의 효력" 부산대 39 (39): 1998