일제강제징용 배상판결에 대한 민사소송법 쟁점의 검토

Abstract

Legal remedies for the forced labor of the Korean people for the production of military supplies by Japanese companies during the Japanese colonial period have not been appropriately implemented to this day. Accordingly, the victims first requested a Japanese court for damages against Japan and Japanese companies, and the Japanese court dismissed and confirmed the plaintiff s claim. Victims claimed for damages to the Korean courts again, and the Supreme Court Decision 2009Da 68620 and the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da 61381 after reversed were in favor of the plaintiffs. It is the first final and groundbreaking judgment in favor of the plaintiff in legal actions related to various compensations filed by victims of the Japanese colonial period against the Korean and Japanese governments, Etc. In the above case, the courts start from the domestic jurisdictional provisions of the Civil Procedure Law in determining international jurisdiction. In addition, the courts consider the ideology of the distribution of international jurisdiction, the distinctiveness of international jurisdiction, predictability, Etc. by accepting substantial relations. Moreover, the courts affirmed that the situation of the Republic of Korea, the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement, and follow-up measures are more closely related. However, it is sorry that the decision simply enumerates the legal basis without explaining the interrelationship between each criterion in the development of logic. On the other hand, it is very reasonable to apply constitutional values and international jus cogens rules in determining whether foreign judgments violate public policy as one of the requirements for recognizing them. However, it is necessary to supplement more elaborate legal grounds for public policy as the requirements for recognizing foreign judgment and the detailed legal basis on the conclusion of the judgment. Recently, in the same case of claims for damage by victims of forced labor, a lower court concluded contrary to the above logic of the Supreme Court, raising concerns about the regression of the precedent. The lower court should respect the purport of the above Supreme Court decision, and it is hoped that the upper courts will amend the decision. Conclusions and rationale of the Supreme Court decision will be an essential milestone in the future remaining enforcement proceedings as an executive title, in the unification of precedents between the contrary court decisions, and the establishment of political, economic, and international relations between Korea and Japan. It is expected that the theory of precedent will progress further with the development of more advanced and sophisticated legal grounds in related cases in the future.