2012년 대법원 강제동원 판결의 의의

• 영문명: 2012 Supreme Court Ruling on Compulsory Mobilization
• 발행기관: 한일민족문제학회
• 저자명: 김창록(Kim Chang Rok)(金昌祿)
• 간행물 정보: 『韓日民族問題硏究』제35집, 213~244쪽, 전체 32쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 역사학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2018.12.30

국문 초록

The purpose of this article is to examine the rulings sentenced on May 24, 2012 by the Supreme Court of Korea, which are newly-highlighted in 2018. The rulings were on lawsuits filed by victims who had been forced into compulsory labor by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Nippon Steel Corporation in the Japanese colonial period. The first meaning of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it clearly outlines the scope of the rights settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’ in 1965. The Supreme Court ruled that the “‘Claims Agreement’ is not a negotiation for claiming the Japanese colonial rule, but for resolving the financial and civil bond-debt relationship between Korea and Japan based on Article 4 of the San Francisco Treaty by political agreement”, and that “it is difficult to say that the right to claim for damages arising from anti-humanitarian torts or directly linked to the colonial rule was included in the scope of the ‘Claims Agreement.’ ” This declaration of the Supreme Court ruling is reasonable in light of international law standards for the interpretation of treaties. The second significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it clearly declares that the compulsory mobilization, including forced emigration and forced labor, has not been settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’. The Supreme Court ruling declared that the compulsory mobilization was a anti-humanitarian tort or illegal acts directly linked to the colonial rule and it was not settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’. This declaration of the Supreme Court, which articulates that Japanese ‘National Mobilization Law’ and ‘Conscription Ordinance’ were not valid because they were not compatible with the constitutional spirit of the Republic of Korea; that the forced emigration and forced labor of Japanese government and companies were not ‘legal conscription’ but ‘illegal compulsory mobilization’; and that the ‘illegal compulsory mobilization’ problem was not settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’, is reasonable in light of the preamble, Article 100 and Article 101 of 1948 Constitution and the preamble of the present Constitution. The third and largest significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it clearly declares that “the Japanese domination of the Korean peninsula during the Japanese colonial period is an illegal occupation in terms of norms, and the effect of juridical relations incompatible with the constitutional spirit of the Republic of Korea should be excluded.” Whereas it is surprisingly little noticed, this declaration is nothing more than a landmark declaration of the legal identity of Korea, which makes clear the legal discontinuity between the period under Japanese occupation and that after the liberation.

영문 초록

この論文の目的は、日帝強占期に三菱重工業株式会社と日本製鉄株式会社により強制連行され強制労働を強いられた被害者たちが提起した訴訟について、2012年5月24日に韓国の大法院が宣告した判決の意義を探ってみることである。 大法院判決の一番目の意義は、1965年「請求権協定」によって解決された権利の範囲を明確に提示したという点である。大法院判決は、「請求権協定」は、「日本の植民支配賠償を請求するための協商ではなく、サンフランシスコ条約第4条に基づいて、韓日両国間の財政的·民事的な債権·債務関係を政治的合意により解決するためのもの」であって、「日本の国家権力が関与した反人道的な不法行為や植民支配に直結した不法行為による損害賠償請求権が請求権協定の適用対象に含まれたと見ることはできない」と宣言した。このような大法院判決の宣言は、条約の解釈に関する国際法の基準に照らしてみるとき妥当である。 大法院判決の二番目の意義は、強制連行と強制労働を含める強制動員も「日本の国家権力が関与した反人道的な不法行為や植民支配に直結した不法行為」であると判断し、「請求権協定」によって解決されなかったと宣言したという点である。このような大法院の宣言は、日帝の「国家総動員法」と「国民徴用令」は大韓民国の憲法精神と両立できないものとしてその効力が排除されなければならないので、日帝強占期に日帝政府と企業が韓半島の人民を引きずっていき労働を強いたことは合法的な「徴用」ではなく不法的な「強制動員」であり、その不法的な「強制動員」の問題は「請求権協定」によって解決されなかったというものとして、1948年憲法の前文、付則第100条、付則第101条および現行憲法の前文に照らしてみるとき妥当である。 大法院判決の三番目かつ一番大きな意義は、大法院判決が「日帝強占期における日本の韓半島支配は規範的な観点から不法的な強占にすぎず、日本の不法的な支配による法律関係のなか大韓民国の憲法精神と両立できないものはその効力が排除されると見るべきである」と明確に宣言したという点である。以外に注目されていないものであるが、この宣言こそ日帝強占期と光復以後の法的な断絶を明確にした、大韓民国の法的アイデンティティーに関する画期的な宣言に他ならない。

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말

Ⅱ. 「청구권협정」에 의해 해결된 권리는 무엇인가?

Ⅲ. 강제동원 문제는 「청구권협정」에 의해 해결되었는가?

Ⅳ. 대법원 판결의 획기적 의의

Ⅴ. 맺음말

참고문헌

Abstract

일본어요약

키워드

한일청구권협정 강제동원 징용 대법원 강제동원 판결 한일관계 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan Compulsory Mobilization Conscription Supreme Court Ruling on Compulsory Mobilization Relationship between Korea and Japan