일제 강제징용 배상에 관한 대법원 판결과 한일 청구권 협정의 해석 -조약의 해석 원칙을 중심으로-

This article is themed around the 'Supreme Court ruling on compensation for forced labor during Japanese occupation and the principles for Interpretation of Treaty' and addressed the issues arising from the principles by which domestic courts interpreted the Treaty based on the Supreme Court Ruling on the compensation for damage caused by forced labor during Japanese occupation. In the Supreme Court ruling on compensation for forced labor during Japanese occupation Decision, the majority opinion indicated that individuals' right to claim was not covered by the Treaty on the Right of Korea-Japan Claim while the concurring opinion indicated that individuals' right to claim was covered by the Treaty on the Right of Korea-Japan Claim, which constituted only a waiver of the right to diplomatic protection and could not cause such individuals' right to claim to cease to exist. The Korea-Japan Claims Agreement is a treaty concluded between Korea and Japan, and as such, it must be interpreted in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention outlines the general rule of treaty interpretation, stating that the terms of a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with their ordinary meaning in the context of the treaty and in light of its object and purpose. When the application of Article 31 proves difficult, Article 32 allows the use of supplementary means to confirm the meaning of Article 31. When interpreting the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement in accordance with the Vienna Convention, the two key issues in the judgment in question can be summarized as follows: Under Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention alone, it can be determined that individual claims are included within the scope of the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement. Even when examining supplementary means under Article 32, such as the negotiation process, it is clear that Korea and Japan intended to include individual claims within the scope of the agreement The Korea-Japan Claims Agreement follows the framework of a lump-sum settlement agreement, where the responsibility for compensation was transferred from Japan to Korea. Therefore, individual claims can be exercised against Korea rather than Japan. This indicates that individual claims were not extinguished but were instead restricted from being pursued against Japan. If there are victims of forced labor who have not yet received compensation under previous special laws, the government should provide compensation again. As it is said that interpretation breathes life into treaties, a process of interpretation is indispensable for making a treaty applicable to specific cases. It is important to understand the principles for interpretation of treaties in international law as domestic courts are expected to be often confronted with the issues arising from interpretation of treaties in the period ahead. Finally, the victims of forced labor will feel even more heavy-hearted amid the worsening relations between Korea and Japan in the wake of the ruling over the compensation for forced labor during Japanese occupation. However, the relations between Korea and Japan would improve and the protection of human rights for victims would be further underpinned if the Treaty on the Right of Korea-Japan Claim is interpreted in accordance with the principles for interpretation of treaties and is enforced based on such interpretation