南韓法院判三菱重工必須損賠殖民地時代勞工

Recently the Mainichi News on-line reported the following:

元徴用工訴訟:韓国の地裁、三菱重に損賠支払い命じる

毎日新聞　2013年11月01日　20時56分（最終更新　11月02日　00時05分）

　【光州（韓国南西部）大貫智子】日本の植民地時代に名古屋市の軍需工場で働かされたとして元女子勤労挺身（ていしん）隊の韓国人女性４人と遺族１人が三菱重工業に損害賠償の支払いを求めた訴訟で、光州地裁は１日、同社に女性１人あたり１億５０００万ウォン（約１３９０万円）、遺族に８０００万ウォン（約７３０万円）の支払いを命じる判決を言い渡した。戦後補償に関する訴訟で韓国の裁判所が日本企業に賠償を命じるのは３件目。元女子勤労挺身隊員への賠償命令は初めて。

　今後、提訴の動きが広がる可能性があり、原告側弁護団は「韓国で訴訟が続くのは日韓関係にとって望ましくない」と、韓国政府が来月設立予定の元徴用工らに対する支援財団に日本企業が参加することを求めている。

　一方、三菱重工は判決を不服とし控訴する考えを示した。

　判決では、原告らを上級学校に通学させるなどとうそをついて動員し、劣悪な環境で労働させたなどとして、原告の精神的苦痛に対する賠償責任があると断じた。

　また、１９６５年の日韓請求権協定について、日本側は植民地支配への不法性を認めておらず、両政府間で植民地支配に対する合意がない中で締結されたことなどを理由に、個人請求権は消滅していないとした。今年７月に同社と新日鉄住金に元徴用工への賠償を命じた判決と同じ解釈だ。

　また、韓国政府は７０年代、協定に基づき日本から供与された経済協力金の一部を個人補償として支給したことがあるが、判決は「死亡者に対する補償に過ぎない」と指摘し、原告らは一切補償を受けていないとした。

　７月の２件の判決で、賠償額は８０００万〜１億ウォンだったが、今回は、原告が当時１０代前半と若かったことや、韓国帰還後に従軍慰安婦と誤解されて精神的苦痛を受けた点などを考慮し、増額した。

　原告の梁錦徳（ヤン・クムドク）さん（８２）は「裁判を始めた当初はこんな判決が出るとは考えもしなかった」と涙をぬぐった。梁さんら今回の原告は日本でも同様の訴訟を起こしたが２００８年、最高裁で敗訴が確定。しかし１２年５月に韓国最高裁が個人請求権は消滅していないとの判断を示し、昨年１０月にあらためて提訴した。韓国ではほかに３件の提訴が相次ぎ、今回はその最初の判決。

(試譯文)

In the lawsuit which asked the Mitsubishi Heavy Industry to pay reparations to four South Korean women of a former woman labor volunteer corps and one bereaved family member because they had been ordered to work in a munitions factory in Nagoya in the colonial days of Japan, the Guanzhou District Court passed the judgment on the 1^st which ordered the company to pay 150 million won per woman (about 13,900,000 yen) and to pay 80 million won (about 7,300,000 yen) to the bereaved family member. It was the 3rd case that a South Korean court ordered a Japanese company to make compensation in a lawsuit as the post-war compensation. It was the first time that a compensatory command was awarded to a former woman labor volunteer corps member.

From now on, movements towards legal challenge might spread and plaintiff's lawyers were urging that "for lawsuits to continue in South Korea, it would be undesirable for Japan-Korea relations"; as for the South Korean government, it was asking the Japanese companies to participate in a support fund to be established next month that aimed at the former conscript laborers.

On the other hand, the Mitsubishi Heavy Industry showed the idea of being dissatisfied with the judgment and would file an appeal.

The judgment ruled that plaintiffs were mobilized by a lie saying that they were going to attend to an upper school etc.; and judged that there was compensation liability for the mental anguish of the plaintiffs for having been made to work in an inferior environment etc.

Moreover, regarding the Japan-South Korea claim agreement of 1965, on the grounds that the Japanese side did not accept the illegal nature of the colonial rule, thus there was no agreement to the colonial rule among both governments. As such it was concluded that an individual’s right to make a claim had not been ruled out. It was on the same interpretation that a judgment was made in July this year which ordered the same company and the New Nippon Steel Sumitomo Metal to compensate to a former conscript laborer.

Moreover, although based on an agreement in the 1970s, the South Korean government, using money supplied by Japan, had provided some economic assistance as individual compensation, the judgment indicated that "it is only compensation to the deceased", and assumed that plaintiffs had received no compensation.

Although the claimable amount in the judgment of the two cases in July was 80 million-100 million won, the amount was increased in consideration that the plaintiff’s age in those days was at the first half of their 10s, they were young; and that they had been misunderstood as comfort women after returning to South Korea, thus suffered mental anguish etc.

The plaintiff Mr. Jan Qum Doc (Yan Kumudoku) (82) wiped the tear, saying that “at the beginning when the trial began, we did not think such a judgment could come out". Although the same plaintiff Mr. Jan had filed the same lawsuit in Japan, it was decided as a lost case in the Supreme Court in 2008. However, in May 2012 the South Korean Supreme Court showed the judgment that individual claims had not been ruled out, because of that, a new appeal was submitted in October last year. Additionally, in South Korea, there were three legal appeal cases succeeding one another, and this time was the first judgment of these cases.

I hope the court judgment in South Korea would not harm the trade relation between South Korea and Japan.