The biggest issue in the lawsuit filed by victims of Japanese forced labor was the Korea-Japan right agreement and the right to claim damages. It is a matter of whether the money received from Japan under the Korea-Japan Bill of Rights, which was signed in 1965, already includes compensation for forced labor.

In the full text of the Korea-Japan Bill of Charges Agreement, the Republic of Korea and Japan hope to resolve the issue of claims between the two countries and their citizens.It says " Article 1 is a provision that Japan will provide $300 million to South Korea for free and $200 million as loans. Article 2 states, 'Ensure that the issue of people's property, rights and interests and claims is completely and ultimately resolved.' There is also a saying that 'no claim can be made about all claims'.
The Supreme Court interpreted the claim of compensation to victims, including the late Yeo Woon-taek, as the right to file for compensation. It is said that the claim is made on the premise that the Japanese government made illegal acts against the Korean Peninsula and against humanity directly linked to the execution of the war on invasion. In other words, they did not claim wages or compensation that were not paid. This is the same as the 2012 ruling by the Supreme Court.

It was based on the fact that the Japanese government systematically mobilized manpower needed at the steel mill in an illegal invasion war, and that Japan Steel, a military investigation company, actively cooperated with the government's labor mobilization policy. The Supreme Court said, "Ladies and others were mobilized by the Japanese government and the iron industry without knowing much about their work contents or environment in Japan, and engaged in dangerous labor in poor conditions." In addition, they were forced to save money without knowing the specific pay, unable to escape under constant surveillance, and if they were caught trying to escape, they were beaten.
The Korea-Japan Billing Rights Agreement is based on the Treaty of San Francisco signed in 1951 to deal with the postwar Pacific War. The Supreme Court called the Korea-Japan claims agreement "not a negotiation to claim compensation for Japan's illegal colonial rule, but a political agreement to resolve the financial and private bond and financial relations between the two countries based on the San Francisco treaty."

The first Korea-Japan summit, hosted under the San Francisco Treaty, will present "eight items" on the financial and civil debt relationships between the two countries. Paragraph 5 contains the words 'Repay claim for non-payment, compensation and other claims by Koreans for use in contrition.' The Supreme Court responded by saying that it was not based on the illegality of Japanese colonial rule.

The White Paper on Korea-Japan Summit, which was published by the government in 1965, also provided the basis for such a judgment. The white paper said, 'The right to claim against Japan is distinct from the right to indemnity from the victor countries. Korea was not a signatory to the San Francisco Treaty, so it was not authorized to claim compensation for 'damage and pain' enjoyed by the victorious country. The issue of claims between Korea and Japan cannot include compensation claims. Based on this, the Supreme Court said, "Nothing in the Bill of Rights or its annex refers to the illegality of Japanese colonial rule."

Japan delivered $500 million in economic cooperation funds under the Korea-Japan Bill of Rights agreement. The Supreme Court said that the scope of the money does not include mandatory mobilization. This is because in the process of negotiating claims, the Japanese government did not recognize the illegal nature of colonial rule and denied legal compensation for forced labor damages.

It was based on the negotiation process between the two countries prior to the signing of the claims agreement. According to the Supreme Court, South Korea at the time referred to 'compensation on the mental and physical suffering of the accused by forceful mobilization of other people.' In late 1961, Japan demanded a total of $1.22 billion, accounting for 30 percent of the total $364 million in compensation for forced labor.

The Supreme Court, however, said that this remark was not an official view of Korea or Japan, but merely a remark made in the process of negotiating, referring to 'the mental and physical pain of the employed' as a reaction to the negotiations.

The Supreme Court said that the two 배팅사이트 governments failed to reach an agreement on Japan`s sovereignty over the Korean Peninsula, but the claim agreement was settled at $300 million. It is hard to say that it included forced mobilization because it is far below the required amount.

Link: คลิ๊กที่นี่