일제하 강제동원 손해배상청구 사건에서 소멸시효상의 쟁점: 과거사 사건에서 권리행사 가능성 법리에 대한 재조명

Abstract

Japanese empire had occupied Korea, the Chosen dynasty, by force for 35 yeas(1910-1945). After the World War II, Koreans are emancipated from the Japanese forced occupation and there had been various long lasting conflicts between the two countries, some of which had been resolved by the treaty in 1963, the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Cooperation between the Republic of Korea and Japan. Even though South Korea and Japan reopened the diplomatic relationship since 1963 after the treaty, some of the conflicts are not resolved in spite of it, one of which is the issue of victims' and survivors' personal rights to claim solatium for the forced mobilization during the Japanese occupation period.
 Many Koreans had been forcibly mobilized during the Imperial Japanese occupation and were put to forced labor at many institutions and corporations including Nippon Steel Corporation, the backbone of the military industry of the Japanese forced occupation. Some of the victims and survivors sought solatium payment against Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, a newly incorporated company based on the dissolution of Nippon Steel Corporation. Japanese Government and the related corporations have been asserting that the victims' every personal right against Japan had been also resolved by the treaty between both governments.
 In 2018 the Korean Supreme Court finally held that rights to claim reparations for damages against Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation do not fall within the scope of the application of the Treaty, 6 years after the initial render in 2012. After the final render of the decision of the Korean Supreme Court, other victims and survivors also sought the proper sodium for the forced mobilization, some of which are accepted by the courts based on the rulings of the Supreme Court above but others are not successful because of the issue of the statute of limitations.
 This article reviews the basic rules of the transitional justice and the statute of limitations in South Korea, with author's critics on the rulings of the Gwangju High Court and the Seoul Central Distrct Court, which are contradict each other regarding the issue of the statute of limitations.