강제동원 손해배상 판결: 역사적 부정의와 시정적 정의

Historial injustice can be defined as harmful acts inflicted on a large scale amid certain historical situations in the past. It leaves in its wake severe suffering of a number of victims, who, even after specific acts corresponding to historical injustice end, face difficulty in the process of seeking the remedy for violation of their right due to attempts made to justify or dismiss the past wrongdoing. After 1938, Japan forcibly mobilized Koreans as laborers in multiple ways, resulting in many victims being transported, by means of abduction, hauling, fraud, conciliation, and threat, to Japan, the South Sea Islands, the Russian Sakhalin Island, and other areas where they were put to work under violent supervision and control with very little wages paid to them. The victims had made relentless efforts since the 1990s to seek a legal remedy for damages caused by the forced labor mobilization, and finally the Korean Supreme Court, in the en banc decision 2013Da61381, held that Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal should compensate the victims of the compulsory labor mobilization for damages. This decision is in line with the 2009Da68620 judgement delivered on May 24, 2012 and further elucidates a range of issues regarding the right of the victims of the forcible mobilization. The compulsory labor mobilization, an illegal act against humanity committed amid the Japanese colonial rule over the Korean Peninsula, is categorized as a case in which perpetrators and victims still exist or its successors can be specified, and the perpetrators have continued to benefit from the act while the victims have not received appropriate reparation for damages. Therefore, from the perspective of rectificatory justice, it is just even now for the company, as a perpetrator and beneficiary, to take rectificatory measures for the victims. In addition, the rectification for historical injustice cannot be realized simply by financial compensation; it requires the offender to recognize and apologize for the past wrongdoing. In the case of the perpetrator's refusal, however, court's rulings on reparation claims involving historical justice serve as the only instrument to protect the right of victims, and such decisions have significance in that they have effect on relief for victims while publicly verifying those cases as true and declaring the perpetrator's responsibility in order to prevent historical wrongdoing from repeating. In light of such principle of rectificatory justice, the Supreme Court's en banc decision 2013Da61381 handed down on October 30, 2018 was not only legitimate but also absolutely crucial. This ruling has met with criticism that indirect compensation for damages has been awarded, or the decision will create confusion for the diplomatic relations between Korea and Japan, or judicial decisions on diplomatic issues should be made to a limited extent. However, these objections are not convincing, taking into consideration the meaning of rectificatory justice after historical injustice, the modern international law and order which value legal remedies for illegal acts against humanity and the Korea's constitutional order that requires judges to make decisions following the Constitution, law, and conscience based on judicial independence.