일제강제징용 피해자의 손해배상청구소송에서 국제민사소송법적 쟁점에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2018. 10. 30. 선고 2013다61381 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로-

For the plaintiffs of the judgment claiming that the Republic of Korea has jurisdiction over international jurisdiction as the place of performance and the place of illegal activity, the first trial judgment and the repatriation judgment must file a lawsuit in a place where the defendant cannot predict the liability for damages due to the illegal act. Since this is not fair, it denies the international jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea as it is not included in the lawsuit on property rights under Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accepted. However, there is a close relationship between the Republic of Korea, where the plaintiffs are addressed, and the right to claim personal compensation, in particular, since the plaintiffs are recognized as evidence as recognized in the remand judgment, it can be considered that it is in accordance with the validity of the place of duty as a cause of jurisdiction. Just because it is unpredictable, the sentence of profits between the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be regarded as unfair. In addition, the judgment of the second trial is the main reason for denying the jurisdiction as a place of duty, and it is difficult to predict the defendant. On the other hand, some of the plaintiffs filed with the Japanese court for the same grounds for the same claim, and the judgment of defeat was confirmed. Korea approves foreign judgments by judging whether the result of approving foreign judgments violates Korean public order and morals by taking the reasons for foreign judgments as the subject of judging. Violation of the approval official requirements is “① contrary to our court rules, ② these court rules belong to Korea's basic moral beliefs, including the constitution, or fundamental values ​​and notions of justice, and ③ between the judgment of the Japanese judgment and our court rules. The difference is so great that the former must go beyond what we can tolerate.” Based on this, as a result of reviewing the judgment, the Japanese judgment that forced detention and forced mobilization due to the annexation of Korea and Japan and the National Conscription Ordinance in 1910 was legal, contrary to our rules of law, and furthermore, there is a difference between the preamble of the Constitutional Constitution and the current Constitution. The judgment that refused to approve the Japanese judgment is very reasonable in that it is large and the relevant part is the fundamental idea of ​​value in Korea.