If the plaintiff’s case is ruled in favor of the same effect in January 2021, the Japanese government will not pay
“The Japanese government’s position is that the comfort women issue was resolved through the Korea-Japan claims agreement.”
When the court overturned the first trial and ruled on the 23rd that Japan must pay compensation to the victims in the appeal trial of the damages claim filed by the Japanese military comfort women victims against the Japanese government, the Japanese media quickly responded. It was reported that in past similar rulings, the Japanese government did not respond to compensation.
Japan’s Jiji News Agency reported that in the appeal trial of a lawsuit filed by grandmother Lee Yong-soo and others demanding compensation from the Japanese government, the Seoul High Court issued a ruling acknowledging the plaintiff’s appeal.
The news agency explained that the Japanese government “was of the position that the lawsuit should be dismissed” in accordance with the principle of “sovereign immunity” (state immunity) under international law.
In the first lawsuit filed with the same purpose in January 2021 by 12 comfort women victims, including the late Bae Chun-hee, a different court in the same court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The Japanese government was ordered to pay 100 million won per victim.
The news agency also mentioned this favorable ruling and said, “However, the Japanese government is not responding to the payment of compensation.”
Kyodo News also urgently reported a related article.
Kyodo also introduced winning cases, including the late Bae Chun-hee, and said, “At the time, the Japanese government did not respond to compensation. “The plaintiffs requested that the list of assets held by the Japanese government in Korea be disclosed, but the Japanese government did not respond to the disclosure,” he said.
Nippon Keizai Shimbun (Nikkei), Yomiuri Shimbun, Asahi Shimbun, Mainichi Shimbun, and Sankei Shimbun also quickly published related articles.
Asahi said that the first trial recognized sovereign immunity under international law, but the appeals court overturned this and ordered the Japanese government to pay compensation. Mainichi also reported that the issue was whether to recognize sovereign immunity.
Nikkei explained that the court ruled that this lawsuit did not fall under sovereign immunity.
In particular, Nikkei reported, “The Japanese government is taking the position that the comfort women issue was resolved in the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement.” Therefore, it is expected that the Japanese government will not seek compensation for damages this time either.
Earlier on this day, in the appeal trial of the damages claim filed against Japan by 17 people, including the late grandmother Kwak Ye-nam, held at the Seoul High Court’s 33rd civil division (Chief Judge Koo Hoe-geun), the first trial ruling said, “The plaintiff’s claim amount is fully acknowledged.” It was decided that “the defendant should pay the claim amount and delay damages listed in the attached sheet to the plaintiff.”
The cost of this lawsuit is equivalent to 2.116 billion won, and with most of the plaintiffs’ claims being acknowledged, the amount of compensation is estimated to be 200 million won for each victim.
Victims of Japanese military comfort women, including grandmother Kwak and Lee Yong-su, filed this lawsuit in December 2016, claiming that the Japanese government was responsible for compensating the victims.
The first trial ruling applied the so-called ‘sovereign immunity’ rule of international law, which states that a sovereign state cannot be brought before another country’s court, but the appeals court overturned this and ruled that sovereign immunity was denied for Japan’s actions. The plaintiff’s argument was accepted that inhumane acts such as comfort women are an exception to state immunity.
The second trial court pointed out that the international trend related to the legal principle of state immunity has changed from ‘absolute immunity’, which does not recognize the jurisdiction of courts of other countries, to ‘limited immunity’, which denies this for non-sovereign acts.
Source: Donga
Mark Jones is a world traveler and journalist for News Rebeat. With a curious mind and a love of adventure, Mark brings a unique perspective to the latest global events and provides in-depth and thought-provoking coverage of the world at large.